ERIBULIN MESYLATE: OUR EXPERIENCE IN A REAL-LIFE CLINICAL SETTING

Background: Eribulin mesylate was initially approved in 2010 by FDA as a third-line treatment for women with advanced breast cancer (ABC) pretreated with at least two lines of chemotherapy, and then in 2011 it was approved by EMA as a second-line therapy. Patients should have received an anthracycline and a taxane in either the adjuvant or metastatic setting. Since then, several studies have been conducted confirming its efficacy and safety. We report our experience of using eribulin in our centre in a real-life clinical setting.

Materials and methods: 34 patients with ABC were enrolled to receive eribulin. From February 2016 to February 2017, patients were treated with standard doses of eribulin and evaluated for toxicity and responses. All of them had previously received anthracyclines and taxanes in either the adjuvant or metastatic setting. Median age was 60 years (range: 39–79). ECOG performance status was 1 or 2 at the time of enrollment. Median number of cycles of eribulin was 5 (range 2–10). Patients received eribulin from first-line chemotherapy to seventh-line chemotherapy for ABC. Median number of envolved visceral organs was 2 (range 1–4).

Results: There were no complete responses. Partial responses were achieved in 26.4% (9/34), stabilization of the disease in 32.4% (11/34) and progression of the disease in 41.2% (14/34) of patients. The median progression-free survival was 4.09 months (range: 2.6–6.53). Main toxicities (grade 3–4) included peripheral neuropathy and neutropenia. Neuropathy was marked in 14.7% (5/34) and neutropenia in 14.7% (5/34) of patients. Dose reductions were required in 14.7% (5/34) of patients because of neutropenia.

Conclusion: Our experience shows that eribulin has clinical activity as well as satisfactory tolerability in unselected patients in a reallife clinical setting. Thus, in our opinion, eribulin can represent a new option in treatment of ABC patients.

1. Towle M. J., Salvato K.A., Budrow J. et al. In vitro and in vivo anticancer activities of synthetic macrocyclic ketone analogues of halichondrin B, Cancer Res., 2001, Vol. 61, pp. 1013–1021.

2. Kuznetsov G., Towle M. J., Cheng H. et al. Induction of morphological and biochemical apoptosis following prolonged mitotic blockage by halichondrin B macrocyclic ketone analog E7389, Cancer Res., 2004, Vol. 64, pp. 5760–5766.

3. Jordan M.A., Kamath K., Manna T. et al. The primary antimitotic mechanism of action of the synthetic halichondrin E7389 is suppression of microtubule growth, Mol. Cancer Ther., 2005, Vol. 4, pp. 1086–1095.

4. Okouneva T., Azarenko O., Wilson L. et al. Inhibition of centromere dynamics by eribulin (E7389) during mitotic metaphase, Mol. Cancer Ther., 2008, Vol. 7, pp. 2003–2011.

5. Smith J.A., Wilson L., Azarenko O. et al. Eribulin binds at microtubule ends to a single site on tubulin to suppress dynamic instability, Biochemistry, 2010, Vol. 49, pp. 1331–1337.

6. Wozniak K.M., Nomoto K., Lapidus R.G. et al. Comparison of neuropathy-inducing effects of eribulin mesylate, paclitaxel, and ixabepilone in mice, Cancer Res., 2011, Vol. 71, pp. 3952–3962.

7. Thadani-Mulero M., Nanus D.M., Giannakakou P. Androgen receptor on the move: Boarding the microtubule expressway to the nucleus, Cancer Res., 2012, Vol. 72, pp. 4611–4615.

8. Towle M. J., Salvato K.A., Wels B. F. et al. Eribulin induces irreversible mitotic blockade: Implications of cell-based pharmacodynamics for in vivo efficacy under intermittent dosing conditions, Cancer Res., 2011, Vol. 71, pp. 496–505.

9. Cortes J., O’Shaughnessy J., Loesch D. et al. Eribulin monotherapy versus treatment of physician’s choice in patients with metastatic breast cancer (EMBRACE): A phase 3 open-label randomised study, Lancet, 2011, Vol. 377, pp. 914–923.

10. Kaufman P.A., Awada A., Twelves C. et al. Phase III open-label randomized study of eribulin mesylate versus capecitabine in patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer previously treated with an anthracycline and a taxane, J. Clin. Oncol., 2015, Vol. 33, pp. 594–601.

11. Twelves C., Awada A., Cortes J., Yelle I., Velikova G., Olivo M., Song J., Dutcus C., Kaufman P. Subgroup Analyses from a Phase 3, Open-Label, Randomized Study of Eribulin Mesylate Versus Capecitabine in Pretreated Patients with Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer, Breast Cancer: Basic and Clinical Research, 2016, Vol. 10, pp. 77–84.

12. Pivot X., Marme F., Koenigsberg R. et al. Pooled analyses of eribulin in metastatic breast cancer patients with at least one prior chemotherapy, Ann. Oncol., 2016, Vol. 27, pp. 1525–31.

13. Blum J. L., Twelves C. J., Dutcus C. et al. Impact of the number of prior chemotherapy regimens on overall survival (OS) among subjects with locally recurrent or MBC treated with eribulin mesylate: results from the Phase III EMBRACE study, Presented at the 33rd Annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS), December 8-12, 2010, San Antonio, TX, USA, P6-13–01.

14. Cheang M., Chia S., Voduc D. et al. Ki67 index, HER2 status, and prognosis of patients with luminal В breast cancer, J. Natl. Cancer. Inst., 2009, Vol. 101, pp. 736–750.

15. Hammond M., Hayes D., Wolff A. Clinical notice for American Society of Clinical Oncology-College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations on ER/PgR and HER2 testing in breast cancer, J. Clin. Oncol., 2011, Vol. 29, pp. 1152–1162.

16. Perou C., Sorlie T., Eisen M. et al. Molecular portraits of human breast tumours, Nature, 2000, Vol. 406, pp. 747–752.

17. Blows F.M., Driver K. E., Schmidt M.K. et al. Subtyping of breast cancer by immunohistochemistry to investigate a relationship between subtype and short and long term survival: a collaborative analysis of data for 10,159 cases from 12 studies, PLOS Medicine, 2010, No. 7 (5).