Abstract

Background

Hormone receptor (HR)-positive, HER2-negative metastatic invasive lobular breast cancer (mILC) is distinct from invasive ductal cancer (IDC) in clinicopathologic and molecular characteristics, impacting its response to systemic therapy. While endocrine therapy (ET) combined with targeted therapies has shown efficacy in ET-sensitive mILC, data on chemotherapy in ET-refractory mILC remain limited. We investigated the efficacy of single-agent capecitabine (CAP) versus taxanes (TAX) in ET-refractory HR+ HER2-negative patients with mILC.

Materials and Methods

Using data from the MD Anderson prospectively collected breast cancer database, we identified patients with HR+ HER2-negative mILC who received prior ET and first-time chemotherapy in the metastatic setting. We compared outcomes between 173 CAP-treated and 96 TAX-treated patients.

Results

CAP-treated patients had significantly better median progression-free survival (PFS) than TAX-treated patients (8.8 vs 5.0 months, HR 0.63, P < .001). Overall survival (OS) did not differ significantly between the groups (42.7 vs 36.6 months for CAP vs TAX, respectively, HR 0.84, P = .241). Multivariate analyses for PFS and OS revealed better outcomes in subjects with fewer metastatic sites and those exposed to more lines of ET. Additionally, Black patients showed worse OS outcomes compared to White patients (HR 2.46; P = .001).

Conclusion

In ET-refractory HR+ HER2-negative mILC, single-agent CAP demonstrated superior PFS compared to TAX. Our findings highlight the potential benefit of CAP in this patient subset, warranting further investigation through prospective trials.

Acknowledgment

The MD Anderson prospectively collected breast cancer database and its current director Dr. Carlos Barcenas. The project was presented as a poster at the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer Congress in Berlin, Germany, 11-13 May 2023.

Funding

The study analyses in this work were supported in part by the NIH/NCI Cancer Center Support Grant (Award number P30 CA016672) and the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT) grant that contributed to the recent updates of our database (CPRIT MIRA RP170067, RP170079, and RP180712).

Conflict of Interest

Jason A. Mouabbi reports consulting fees from GE Healthcare, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Gilead, Novartis, Fresenius Kabi, BostonGene, and Cardinal Health. Debasish Tripathy reports research support from Novartis and Pfizer along with consulting fees from Novartis, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca. Rachel Layman reports research support from Novartis, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Accutar Biotechnology, Puma, Celcuity, Zentalis, and Arvinas along with consulting fees from Eli Lilly, Novartis, Celcuity, Gilead, Biotheryx. Wei Qaio, Yu Shen, and Akshara Singareeka Raghavendra report no conflict of interest.

Author Contributions

Conception/Design: J.A.M., D.T., and R.M.L. Provision of study material or patients: A.S.R., W.Q, and Y.S. Collection and/or assembly of data: A.S.R. Data analysis and interpretation: J.A.M, W.Q., and Y.S. Manuscript writing: J.A.M. Final approval of manuscript: J.A.M., W.Q., Y.S., A.S.R., D.T., and R.M.L.

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, upon reasonable request.

References

1.

Tan
   
PH
Ellis
   
I
Allison
   
K
, et al. . 
The 2019 World Health Organization classification of tumours of the breast
Histopathology
2020
;
77
(
2
):
181
-
185
https://doi.org/10.1111/his.14091

2.

Li
   
CI
Anderson
   
BO
Daling
   
JR
Moe
   
RE.
  
Trends in incidence rates of invasive lobular and ductal breast carcinoma
JAMA
2003
;
289
(
11
):
1421
-
1424
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.289.11.1421

3.

Ciriello
   
G
Gatza
   
ML
Beck
   
AH
, et al. ; 
TCGA Research Network
Comprehensive molecular portraits of invasive lobular breast cancer
Cell
2015
;
163
(
2
):
506
-
519
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2015.09.033

4.

Iorfida
   
M
Maiorano
   
E
Orvieto
   
E
, et al. . 
Invasive lobular breast cancer: subtypes and outcome
Breast Cancer Res Treat
2012
;
133
(
2
):
713
-
723
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-012-2002-z

5.

Reed
   
AEM
Kutasovic
   
JR
Lakhani
   
SR
Simpson
   
PT.
  
Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: morphology, biomarkers and’omics
Breast Cancer Res
2015
;
17
(
1
):
1
-
11
.

6.

Dabbs
   
DJ
Schnitt
   
SJ
Geyer
   
FC
, et al. . 
Lobular neoplasia of the breast revisited with emphasis on the role of E-cadherin immunohistochemistry
Am J Surg Pathol
2013
;
37
(
7
):
e1
-
11
https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0b013e3182918a2b

7.

Moll
   
R
Mitze
   
M
Frixen
   
UH
Birchmeier
   
W.
  
Differential loss of E-cadherin expression in infiltrating ductal and lobular breast carcinomas
Am J Pathol
1993
;
143
(
6
):
1731
-
1742
.

8.

Morrogh
   
M
Andrade
   
VP
Giri
   
D
, et al. . 
Cadherin–catenin complex dissociation in lobular neoplasia of the breast
Breast Cancer Res Treat
2012
;
132
(
2
):
641
-
652
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-011-1860-0

9.

Guiu
   
S
Wolfer
   
A
Jacot
   
W
, et al. . 
Invasive lobular breast cancer and its variants: how special are they for systemic therapy decisions
Crit Rev Oncol Hematol
2014
;
92
(
3
):
235
-
257
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.critrevonc.2014.07.003

10.

Pestalozzi
   
BC
Zahrieh
   
D
Mallon
   
E
, et al. . 
Distinct clinical and prognostic features of infiltrating lobular carcinoma of the breast: combined results of 15 International Breast Cancer Study Group clinical trials
J Clin Oncol
2008
;
26
(
18
):
3006
-
3014
https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2007.14.9336

11.

Ferlicot
   
S
Vincent-Salomon
   
A
Médioni
   
J
, et al. . 
Wide metastatic spreading in infiltrating lobular carcinoma of the breast
Eur J Cancer
2004
;
40
(
3
):
336
-
341
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2003.08.007

12.

Mouabbi
   
JA
Raghavendra
   
AS
Bassett
   
RL
, et al. . 
Survival outcomes in metastatic HR-positive, HER2-negative invasive ductal carcinoma compared to invasive lobular carcinoma and mixed ductal/lobular treated with endocrine therapy in combination with CDK4/6 inhibitors, mTOR inhibitor, or PI3K inhibitor
J Clin Oncol
2022
;
40
(
16_suppl
):
1067
-
1067
https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2022.40.16_suppl.1067

13.

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
;
377
(
9769
):
914
-
923
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60070-6

14.

Fumoleau
   
P
Largillier
   
R
Clippe
   
C
, et al. . 
Multicentre, phase II study evaluating capecitabine monotherapy in patients with anthracycline- and taxane-pretreated metastatic breast cancer
Eur J Cancer
2004
;
40
(
4
):
536
-
542
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2003.11.007

15.

Kamal
   
AH
Camacho
   
F
Anderson
   
R
, et al. . 
Similar survival with single-agent capecitabine or taxane in first-line therapy for metastatic breast cancer
Breast Cancer Res Treat
2012
;
134
(
1
):
371
-
378
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-012-2037-1

16.

Kaufman
   
PA
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
;
33
(
6
):
594
-
601
https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2013.52.4892

17.

Yuan
   
P
Hu
   
X
Sun
   
T
, et al. . 
Eribulin mesilate versus vinorelbine in women with locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer: a randomised clinical trial
Eur J Cancer
2019
;
112
:
57
-
65
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2019.02.002

18.

Petrelli
   
F
Barni
   
S.
  
Response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in ductal compared to lobular carcinoma of the breast: a meta-analysis of published trials including 1,764 lobular breast cancer
Breast Cancer Res Treat
2013
;
142
(
2
):
227
-
235
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-013-2751-3

19.

Hoon
   
SN
Lau
   
PK
White
   
AM
, et al. . 
Capecitabine for hormone receptor-positive versus hormone receptor-negative breast cancer
Cochrane Database Syst Rev
2021
;
5
(
5
):
CD011220
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011220.pub2

20.

Talbot
   
DC
Moiseyenko
   
V
Van Belle
   
S
, et al. . 
Randomised, phase II trial comparing oral capecitabine (Xeloda) with paclitaxel in patients with metastatic/advanced breast cancer pretreated with anthracyclines
Br J Cancer
2002
;
86
(
9
):
1367
-
1372
https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6600261

21.

Pérez-Garcia
   
J
Cortés
   
J
Metzger Filho
   
O.
  
Efficacy of single-agent chemotherapy for patients with advanced invasive lobular carcinoma: a pooled analysis from three clinical trials
Oncologist
2019
;
24
(
8
):
1041
-
1047
https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2018-0182

22.

Andreetta
   
C
Puppin
   
C
Minisini
   
A
, et al. . 
Thymidine phosphorylase expression and benefit from capecitabine in patients with advanced breast cancer
Ann Oncol
2009
;
20
(
2
):
265
-
271
https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdn592

23.

Bonotto
   
M
Bozza
   
C
Di Loreto
   
C
, et al. . 
Making capecitabine targeted therapy for breast cancer: which is the role of thymidine phosphorylase
Clin Breast Cancer
2013
;
13
(
3
):
167
-
172
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2012.10.002

24.

Modi
   
S
Jacot
   
W
Yamashita
   
T
, et al. . 
Trastuzumab deruxtecan in previously treated HER2-low advanced breast cancer
N Engl J Med
2022
;
387
(
1
):
9
-
20
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2203690

25.

Rugo
   
HS
Bardia
   
A
Marmé
   
F
, et al. . 
Primary results from TROPiCS-02: a randomized phase 3 study of sacituzumab govitecan (SG) versus treatment of physician’s choice (TPC) in patients (Pts) with hormone receptor–positive/HER2-negative (HR+/HER2-) advanced breast cancer
J Clin Oncol
2022
;
40
(
17_suppl
):
LBA1001
-
LBA1001
https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2022.40.17_suppl.lba1001

26.

Parada
   
H
Sun
   
X
Fleming
   
JM
, et al. . 
Race-associated biological differences among luminal A and basal-like breast cancers in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study
Breast Cancer Res
2017
;
19
(
1
):
131
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-017-0914-6

27.

Huo
   
D
Hu
   
H
Rhie
   
SK
, et al. . 
Comparison of breast cancer molecular features and survival by African and European ancestry in the cancer genome atlas
JAMA Oncol
2017
;
3
(
12
):
1654
-
1662
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.0595

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

  1. Banking on metabolomics for novel therapies in TNBC
    Aurelien Tripp et al., Cell Research, 2022
  2. Parallel DNA G-Quadruplex Induced and Stabilized by Curaxin CBL0137
    Jing-Wei Kong et al., Chinese Physics Letters, 2023
  3. Leveraging immunochemotherapy for treating pancreatic cancer
    Anushka Dongre et al., Cell Research, 2021

Citing articles via

Localized Myxofibrosarcoma: A Retrospective Analysis of Primary Therapy and Prognostic Factors in 134 Patients in a Single Institution
Transarterial Radioembolization for Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Hedgehog Inhibitors Beyond Clinical Complete Response in Basal Cell Carcinoma: Should I Stop or Should I Go?
Efficacy and Safety of Panitumumab in Patients With RAF/RAS-Wild-Type Glioblastoma: Results From the Drug Rediscovery Protocol
Mutational Signature Changes in Patients With Metastatic Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Anal Canal