Dr. Perez on the Phase III Eribulin/Capecitabine Study

Edith A. Perez, MD
Published: Wednesday, Jan 09, 2013

Edith A. Perez, MD, deputy director, Mayo Clinic Cancer Center, Florida, director, Breast Program, Serene M. and Frances C. Durling Professor of Medicine, Mayo Medical School, discusses the results of a phase III study comparing the efficacy of eribulin mesylate (Halaven) to capecitabine (Xeloda) in patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (MBC).

The overall goal of the trial was to demonstrate superiority in OS and PFS for eribulin over capecitabine. The large global trial enrolled and evenly randomized 1102 women with MBC in the first-, second-, and third-line setting. The trial did not demonstrate that eribulin was superior to capecitabine but did show that the two drugs may be equivalent in terms of efficacy, explains Perez. However, a nonsignificant trend favoring eribulin was observed.

In subset analyses of the trial, two subtypes of patients were identified that did better in the eribulin arm. In general, patients with triple-negative and HER2-negative MBC responded better to treatment with eribulin, when compared to capecitabine.

Perez believes this trial provides evidence that alternatives to capecitabine exist and that eribulin may be safely used in the first-, second-, and third-line setting. Additionally, this trial sets the groundwork for future trials investigating eribulin.

Edith A. Perez, MD, deputy director, Mayo Clinic Cancer Center, Florida, director, Breast Program, Serene M. and Frances C. Durling Professor of Medicine, Mayo Medical School, discusses the results of a phase III study comparing the efficacy of eribulin mesylate (Halaven) to capecitabine (Xeloda) in patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (MBC).

The overall goal of the trial was to demonstrate superiority in OS and PFS for eribulin over capecitabine. The large global trial enrolled and evenly randomized 1102 women with MBC in the first-, second-, and third-line setting. The trial did not demonstrate that eribulin was superior to capecitabine but did show that the two drugs may be equivalent in terms of efficacy, explains Perez. However, a nonsignificant trend favoring eribulin was observed.

In subset analyses of the trial, two subtypes of patients were identified that did better in the eribulin arm. In general, patients with triple-negative and HER2-negative MBC responded better to treatment with eribulin, when compared to capecitabine.

Perez believes this trial provides evidence that alternatives to capecitabine exist and that eribulin may be safely used in the first-, second-, and third-line setting. Additionally, this trial sets the groundwork for future trials investigating eribulin.




View Conference Coverage
Online CME Activities
TitleExpiration DateCME Credits
34th Annual Miami Breast Cancer Conference® Clinical Case Vignette Series™May 25, 20182.0
Community Practice Connections™: CDK4/6 Inhibitors With the Experts: The Role of Emerging Agents for the Management of Metastatic Breast CancerMay 30, 20182.0
Publication Bottom Border
Border Publication
x