Ixabepilone and Carboplatin for Hormone Receptor Positive/HER2-neu Negative and Triple Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Hormonal therapies and single-agent sequential chemotherapeutic regimens are the standards of care for HER2- metastatic breast cancer (MBC). However, treating patients with hormone-refractory and triple negative (TN) MBC remains challenging. We report the results of combined ixabepilone and carboplatin in a single-arm phase II trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the present prospective analysis of hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/HER2- and TN MBC cohorts, patients could have received 0 to 2 chemotherapy regimens for MBC before enrollment. All patients received ixabepilone 20 mg/m2 and carboplatin (area under the curve, 2.5) on days 1 and 8 every 21 days. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate (ORR). The secondary objectives included progression-free survival (PFS), clinical benefit rate (CBR), overall survival (OS), and toxicity. RESULTS: We enrolled 54 HR+ and 49 TN patients (median, 1 previous chemotherapy regimen for metastatic disease; most in addition to adjuvant chemotherapy). The ORR was 34% and 30.4% for the HR+ and TN patients, respectively, with a corresponding CBR of 56.6% and 41.3%. The ORRs were similar in taxane-pretreated patients (ORR, 31.4% and 28.6% for HR+ and TN patients, respectively). The median OS was 17.9 months for HR+ patients and 12.5 months for TN patients. The median PFS was similar for both groups at 7.6 months. Grade 3/4 nonhematologic toxicities included neuropathy (9%) and fatigue (8%). Nine patients developed grade 3/4 neuropathy, 7 of whom had received previous taxane treatment. CONCLUSION: Ixabepilone plus carboplatin is active even in later-line HR+ and TN disease. Toxicities were manageable without cumulative myelosuppression. This combination is a reasonable option for those patients with MBC who require combination chemotherapy.

Randomized placebo-controlled phase II trial of perifosine plus capecitabine as second- or third-line therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: In a multicenter, double-blind phase II trial, we compared the efficacy and safety of perifosine plus capecitabine (P-CAP) with placebo plus capecitabine (CAP) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who had progressed after as many as two prior therapies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (n = 38) not previously treated with capecitabine received P-CAP (perifosine 50 mg orally once daily, days 1 to 21 and CAP 825 mg/m(2) orally twice daily, days 1 to 14) or CAP (825 mg/m(2) orally twice daily, days 1 to 14) in 21-day cycles until disease progression. The primary end point was time to progression (TTP). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), safety, and tolerability. RESULTS: Twenty patients were randomly assigned to P-CAP and 18 to CAP. Median TTP (27.5 v 10.1 weeks; P < .001) and median OS (17.7 v 7.6 months; P = .0052) were improved in patients receiving P-CAP versus CAP. ORR was 20% v 7% in the P-CAP and CAP groups, respectively, and one patient in the P-CAP group had a complete response. A subset analysis of fluorouracil-refractory patients showed a median TTP of 17.6 v 9.0 weeks (P < .001) and median OS of 15.1 v 6.5 months (P = .0061). Toxicities, including diarrhea, nausea, fatigue, and hand-foot syndrome, were manageable. CONCLUSION: P-CAP showed promising clinical activity compared with CAP in previously treated patients with mCRC. A phase III trial is underway comparing P-CAP with CAP in patients with refractory mCRC.