Copyright
©The Author(s) 2024.
World J Exp Med. Jun 20, 2024; 14(2): 92558
Published online Jun 20, 2024. doi: 10.5493/wjem.v14.i2.92558
Published online Jun 20, 2024. doi: 10.5493/wjem.v14.i2.92558
Clinical study | Type of study | Number of patients analysed | Number of previous chemotherapy lines | Treatment groups (number of patients) | OS | PFS | ORR (%), P value | ||
Median (months) | HR (95%CI), P value | Median (months) | HR (95%CI), P value | ||||||
Metastatic breast cancer – all subtypes combined | |||||||||
Cortes et al[24], 2011 | Phase III, randomised, open-label, multicentre | 762 | 2-5 (≥ 2 for locally recurrent or MBC) | E (508) vs TPC (254) | 13.1 vs 10.6 | 0.81 (0.66-0.99), P = 0.041 | 3.7 vs 2.2 | 0.87 (0.71-1.05), P = 0.137 | 12 vs 5, P = 0.002 |
Yuan et al[27], 2019 | Phase III, randomised, open-label, multicentre | 530 | 2-5 | E (264) vs vinorelbine (266) | 13.4 vs 12.5 | 1.03 (0.80-1.31), P = 0.838 | 2.8 vs 2.8 | 0.80 (0.65-0.98), P = 0.036 | 30.7 vs 16.9, P < 0.001 |
Kaufman et al[26], 2015 | Phase III, randomised, open-label, multicentre | 1102 | 1-3 (1-2 for advanced and/or metastatic disease) | E (554) vs capecitabine (548) | 15.9 vs 14.5 | 0.88 (0.77-1.00), P = 0.056 | 4.1 vs 4.2 | 1.08 (0.93-1.25), P = 0.30 | 11.0 vs 11.5, P = 0.85 |
Pernas et al[28], 2018 | Phase I, single-arm, multicentre | 54 | 1-3 | E + balixafortide (CXCR4 antagonist) | 16.8 | NA | 4.6 (95%CI: 3.1, 5.7) | NA | 29.6 |
Metastatic breast cancer – eribulin as an earlier agent | |||||||||
Ortega et al[48], 2019 | Phase II, single-arm, multicentre | 53 | 0 | E | NA (not reached) | NA | 4.1 (95%CI: 3.2, 6.6) | NA | 20.8 (95%CI: 9.8, 31.7) |
Hayashida et al[63], 2018 | Phase II, open-label, single-arm, multicentre | 32 | 0-1 | E | NA | NA | 8.3 (95%CI: 7.1, 9.4) | NA | 43.8 (95%CI: 26.5, 61.0) |
Takashima et al[64], 2016 | Phase II, open-label single-arm, multicentre | 35 | 0 | E | 35.9 | NA | 5.8 (95%CI: 4.8, 8.1) | NA | 54.3 (95%CI: 37.8, 70.8) |
McIntyre et al[65], 2014 | Phase II, open-label, single-arm, multicentre | 56 | 0 | E | NA | NA | 6.8 (95%CI: 4.4, 7.6) | NA | 28.6 (95%CI 17.3, 42.2) |
Triple Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC) | |||||||||
Twelves et al[38], 2016 | Phase III, randomised, open-label, multicentre | 284 | 1-3 (1-2 for advanced and/or metastatic disease) | E (150) vs capecitabine (134) | 14.4 vs 9.4 | 0.70 (0.54-0.91), P = 0.006 | 2.9 vs 2.3 | 0.80 (0.61-1.05), P = 0.112 | NA |
Pivot et al[39], 2016 | Phase III, randomised, open-label, multicentre | 352 | 305 study (vs TPC): 2-5 (≥ 2 for locally recurrent or MBC); 301 study (vs capecitabine): 1-3 (1-2 for advanced and/or metastatic disease) | E (199) vs TPC/capecitabine (153) | 12.4 vs 8.1 | 0.72 (0.57-0.90), P = 0.005 | 2.8 vs 2.5 | 0.77 (0.60-0.97), P = 0.028 | NA |
Tolaney et al[37], 2021 | Phase Ib/ II, open-label, single-arm, multicentre | 167 | ≤ 2; 0 (n = 66); 1-2 (n = 101) | E + pembrolizumab | 16.1 | NA | 4.1 | NA | 23.4 (17.2-30.5) |
Yonemori et al[36], 2019 | Phase I/II, open-label, single-arm, multicentre | 48 (Phase I: 24; Phase II: 24) | ≥ 2 | E + olaparib | 14.5 | NA | 4.2 | NA | 37.5 (18.8-59.4) |
Lee et al[42], 2019 | Phase I, single-arm, single-centre | 25 | 0-3 | E + everolimus | 8.3 (95%CI: 5.5, undefined) | NA | 2.6 (95%CI: 2.1, 4.0) | NA | NA |
ER-positive | |||||||||
Twelves et al[38], 2016 | Phase III, randomised, open-label, multicentre | 537 | 1-3 (1-2 for advanced and/or metastatic disease) | E (259) vs capecitabine (278) | 18.2 vs 16.8 | 0.90 (0.74-1.09), P = 0.283 | 4.3 vs 5.3 | 1.11 (0.89-1.38), P = 0.367 | NA |
Pivot et al[39], 2016 | Phase III, randomised, open-label, multicentre | 945 | 305 study (vs TPC): 2-5 (≥ 2 for locally recurrent or MBC); 301 study (vs capecitabine): 1-3 (1-2 for advanced and/or metastatic disease) | E (544) vs TPC/capecitabine (401) | 15.7 vs 13.5 | 0.87 (0.75-1.00), P = 0.058 | 4.1 vs 3.4 | 0.84 (0.72-0.98), P = 0.031 | NA |
HER2-positive | |||||||||
Twelves et al[38], 2016 | Phase III, randomised, open-label, multicentre | 169 | 1-3 (1-2 for advanced and/or metastatic disease) | E (86) vs capecitabine (83) | 14.3 vs 17.1 | 0.97 (0.69-1.35), P = 0.837 | 4.0 vs 5.1 | 1.36 (0.93-1.98), P = 0.115 | NA |
Pivot et al[39], 2016 | Phase III, randomised, open-label, multicentre | 254 | 305 study (vs TPC): 2-5 (≥ 2 for locally recurrent or MBC); 301 study (vs capecitabine): 1-3 (1-2 for advanced and/or metastatic disease) | E (150) vs TPC/capecitabine (104) | 13.5 vs 11.7 | 0.75 (0.57-1.00). P = 0.051 | 3.7 vs 4.2 | 1.00 (0.75-1.35), P = 0.970 | NA |
Sakaguchi et al[55], 2018 | Phase II, single-arm, multicentre | 28 | 0 | E + trastuzumab | NA (not reached) | NA | 11.3 (344 d) | NA | 53.6 (95%CI: 36.62, 69.93) |
Lutrino et al[54], 2016 | Phase II, single-arm, single-centre | 24 | 2-9 | E + trastuzumab | 8 (range 1.3-14.8) | NA | 5.4 (range 1-10.5) | NA | 41.7% |
Inoue et al[56], 2019 | Phase II, open-label, single-arm, multicentre | 25 | 0 | E + trastuzumab + pertuzumab | NA | NA | 23.1 (95%CI: 14.4, 31.8) | NA | 80 (95%CI: 59.3, 93.2) |
- Citation: Oey O, Wijaya W, Redfern A. Eribulin in breast cancer: Current insights and therapeutic perspectives. World J Exp Med 2024; 14(2): 92558
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2220-315x/full/v14/i2/92558.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5493/wjem.v14.i2.92558