Capecitabine for hormone receptor-positive versus hormone receptor-negative breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Retrospective analyses suggest that capecitabine may carry superior activity in hormone receptor-positive relative to hormone receptor-negative metastatic breast cancer. This review examined the veracity of that finding and explored whether this differential activity extends to early breast cancer. OBJECTIVES: To assess effects of chemotherapy regimens containing capecitabine compared with regimens not containing capecitabine for women with hormone receptor-positive versus hormone receptor-negative breast cancer across the three major treatment scenarios: neoadjuvant, adjuvant, metastatic. SEARCH METHODS: On 4 June 2019, we searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 5) in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; Embase; the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform; and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials looking at chemotherapy regimens containing capecitabine alone or in combination with other agents versus a control or similar regimen without capecitabine for treatment of breast cancer at any stage. The primary outcome measure for metastatic and adjuvant trials was overall survival (OS), and for neoadjuvant studies pathological complete response (pCR). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Hazard ratios (HRs) were derived for time-to-event outcomes, and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes, and meta-analysis was performed using a fixed-effect model. MAIN RESULTS: We included 26 studies with outcome data by hormone receptor: 12 metastatic studies (n = 4325), 6 neoadjuvant trials (n = 3152), and 8 adjuvant studies (n = 13,457). Capecitabine treatment was added in several different ways across studies. These could be classified as capecitabine alone compared to another treatment, capecitabine substituted for part of the control chemotherapy, and capecitabine added to control chemotherapy. In the metastatic setting, the effect of capecitabine was heterogenous between hormone receptor-positive and -negative tumours. For OS, no difference between capecitabine-containing and non-capecitabine-containing regimens was observed for all participants taken together (HR 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98 to 1.05; 12 studies, 4325 participants; high-certainty evidence), for those with hormone receptor-positive disease (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.04; 7 studies, 1834 participants; high-certainty evidence), and for those with hormone receptor-negative disease (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.13; 8 studies, 1577 participants; high-certainty evidence). For progression-free survival (PFS), a small improvement was seen for all people (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.96; 12 studies, 4325 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This was largely accounted for by a moderate improvement in PFS for inclusion of capecitabine in hormone receptor-positive cancers (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.91; 7 studies, 1594 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) compared to no difference in PFS for hormone receptor-negative cancers (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.10; 7 studies, 1122 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Quality of life was assessed in five studies; in general there did not seem to be differences in global health scores between the two treatment groups at around two years' follow-up. Neoadjuvant studies were highly variable in design, having been undertaken to test various experimental regimens using pathological complete response (pCR) as a surrogate for disease-free survival (DFS) and OS. Across all patients, capecitabine-containing regimens resulted in little difference in pCR in comparison to non-capecitabine-containing regimens (odds ratio (OR) 1.12, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.33; 6 studies, 3152 participants; high-certainty evidence). By subtype, no difference in pCR was observed for either hormone receptor-positive (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.95; 4 studies, 964 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or hormone receptor-negative tumours (OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.61 to 2.66; 4 studies, 646 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Four studies with 2460 people reported longer-term outcomes: these investigators detected no difference in either DFS (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.21; high-certainty evidence) or OS (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.23; high-certainty evidence). In the adjuvant setting, a modest improvement in OS was observed across all participants (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.98; 8 studies, 13,547 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and no difference in OS was seen in hormone receptor-positive cancers (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.09; 3 studies, 3683 participants), whereas OS improved in hormone receptor-negative cancers (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.89; 5 studies, 3432 participants). No difference in DFS or relapse-free survival (RFS) was observed across all participants (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.01; 8 studies, 13,457 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). As was observed for OS, no difference in DFS/RFS was seen in hormone receptor-positive cancers (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.17; 5 studies, 5604 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and improvements in DFS/RFS with inclusion of capecitabine were observed for hormone receptor-negative cancers (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.86; 7 studies, 3307 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Adverse effects were reported across all three scenarios. When grade 3 or 4 febrile neutropenia was considered, no difference was seen for capecitabine compared to non-capecitabine regimens in neoadjuvant studies (OR 1.31, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.77; 4 studies, 2890 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and a marked reduction was seen for capecitabine in adjuvant studies (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.64; 5 studies, 8086 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was an increase in diarrhoea and hand-foot syndrome in neoadjuvant (diarrhoea: OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.89; 3 studies, 2686 participants; hand-foot syndrome: OR 6.77, 95% CI 4.89 to 9.38; 5 studies, 3021 participants; both moderate-certainty evidence) and adjuvant trials (diarrhoea: OR 2.46, 95% CI 2.01 to 3.01; hand-foot syndrome: OR 13.60, 95% CI 10.65 to 17.37; 8 studies, 11,207 participants; moderate-certainty evidence for both outcomes). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In summary, a moderate PFS benefit by including capecitabine was seen only in hormone receptor-positive cancers in metastatic studies. No benefit of capecitabine for pCR was noted overall or in hormone receptor subgroups when included in neoadjuvant therapy. In contrast, the addition of capecitabine in the adjuvant setting led to improved outcomes for OS and DFS in hormone receptor-negative cancer. Future studies should stratify by hormone receptor and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) status to clarify the differential effects of capecitabine in these subgroups across all treatment scenarios, to optimally guide capecitabine inclusion.

Bevacizumab as a steroid-sparing agent during immunotherapy for melanoma brain metastases: A case series.

BACKGROUND: Brain metastases are common in advanced melanoma and often necessitate corticosteroids such as dexamethasone to control symptoms and reduce peritumoral edema. Immunotherapy improves survival in metastatic melanoma, but concomitant treatment with corticosteroids may reduce efficacy. Here, we report the use of bevacizumab, a vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor, as a steroid-sparing agent in melanoma patients with brain metastases treated with immunotherapy. METHODS: Medical records and imaging were retrospectively analyzed for melanoma patients with brain metastases who received bevacizumab at our institution between 2012 and 2017. RESULTS: 12 melanoma patients with brain metastases received bevacizumab (5-7.5 mg/kg Q2-3 W; median 4 cycles, range 1-9). Patients were BRAF wild-type or resistant to BRAF/MEK inhibitor therapy. All had progressive intracranial disease after prior resection, stereotactic radiosurgery and/or whole brain radiotherapy, and up to four lines of previous systemic treatment. Prior to bevacizumab, all patients had radiologically defined peritumoral edema and nine required dexamethasone for symptom control. In 10 evaluable patients, six reduced their dexamethasone dose by more than 50%, and eight displayed reduced edema 4 weeks after bevacizumab. Seven patients experienced adverse events possibly related to bevacizumab, including intracranial hemorrhage, hypertension, and gastrointestinal bleeding. Ten patients received immunotherapy after bevacizumab. Five patients survived more than 6 months, including one who remained disease-free after 4 years and without neurological deficit despite being hemiplegic from edematous brain metastases prior to bevacizumab. CONCLUSION: In 12 very poor prognosis melanoma patients with brain metastases, bevacizumab was well-tolerated, associated with improved symptoms and reduced peritumoral edema despite weaning steroids, and facilitated treatment with immunotherapy that provided durable survival in a substantial proportion of cases.

Incidence, features and management of radionecrosis in melanoma patients treated with cerebral radiotherapy and anti-PD-1 antibodies.

BACKGROUND: Brain radiotherapy is used in the management of melanoma brain metastases (MBM) and can result in radionecrosis. Anti-PD-1 is active in the brain and may increase the risk of radionecrosis when combined with radiotherapy. We studied the incidence, associated factors and management of radionecrosis in longer-term survivors with MBM treated with this combination. METHODS: Patients with MBM treated with radiotherapy and anti-PD-1 who survived >1 year were identified to determine radionecrosis incidence (Cohort A, n = 135). Cohort A plus additional radionecrosis cases were examined for factors associated with radionecrosis and management (Cohort B, n = 148). RESULTS: From Cohort A, 17% developed radionecrosis, with a cumulative incidence at 2 years of 18%. Using Cohort B, multivariable analysis confirmed an association between radionecrosis and elevated lactate dehydrogenase (p = 0.0496) and prior treatment with ipilimumab (p = 0.0319). Radionecrosis was diagnosed based on MRI (100%), symptoms (69%) and pathology (56%). Treatment included corticosteroids, bevacizumab and neurosurgery. CONCLUSIONS: Radionecrosis is a significant toxicity in longer-term melanoma survivors with MBM treated with anti-PD-1 and radiotherapy. Identification of those at risk of radionecrosis who may avoid radiotherapy is required.

Recent Insights and Advances in the Management of Merkel Cell Carcinoma.

Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a rare and highly aggressive neuroendocrine malignancy with a propensity for recurrence and a poor prognosis. Incidence of MCC is on the rise and is known to increase with advanced age, immunosuppression, and UV exposure. Merkel cell polyomavirus is implicated in the pathogenesis of virus-positive MCC and accounts for 80% of MCCs in the northern hemisphere and 25% in southern latitudes. In contrast, tumorigenesis of virus-negative MCC is linked to UV-induced DNA damage. Interplay between ubiquitous Merkel cell polyomavirus skin infections that commonly occur in healthy skin and other established risk factors, such as immunosuppression and UV exposure, remains poorly understood. Surgery and radiotherapy achieves excellent locoregional control; however, invariably, a significant proportion of patients develop disseminated disease that is incurable. Chemotherapy offers a high response rate for metastatic disease, but responses are short-lived and the impact on survival is not established. Recent advances in our understanding of the genetic landscape and immunobiology of MCC has led to investigation of novel treatments, including immune checkpoint inhibitors, which are likely to rapidly transform the way we manage these patients. We review epidemiologic, clinical, and histopathologic features of MCC; describe recent insights in MCC biology; and discuss novel therapeutic approaches.