Review Article

Liposomal Doxorubicin in the Treatment of Breast Cancer Patients: A Review

Table 2

Trials that directly compared liposomal anthracyclines with conventional anthracyclines, either in monotherapy or combination.

AuthorTrial phaseTreatment regimenPatients’ characteristicsPFSOSRRToxicity

O’Brien et al. [33]IIIPLD (50 mg/m2/4w)
versus
ADR (60 mg/m2/3w)
Stage IV6.9 m
versus
7.8 m
21 m
versus
22 m
33%
versus
38%
Cardiac:
4.7 versus 19.6%
CHF: 0% versus 4%

Harris et al.   
[34]
IIILD (75 mg/m2/3w)
versus
ADR (75 mg/m2/3w)
Stage IV
(17% ADR previous)
3.8 m
versus
4.3 m
16 m
versus
20 m
26%Cardiac: 13 versus 29%
CHF: 5.9 versus 15%
Billingham > 2.5:
26 versus 71%

Batist et al.   
[35]
IIILD (60 mg/m2) + CTX (600 mg/m2)
versus
ADR (60 mg/m2) + CTX (600 mg/m2)
Stage IV
(10% ADR previous)
(30% CRF)
5.1 m
versus
5.5 m
19 m
versus
16 m
Cardiac: 6 versus 21% ( )
CRF: 0 versus 3.2%

Chan et al.   
[36]
IIILD (75 mg/m2) + CTX (600 mg/m2)
versus
EPI (75 mg/m2) + CTX (600 mg/m2)
Stage IV
(No ADR previous)
7.7 m
versus
5.6 m
18.3 m
versus
16 m
46 %
versus
39 %
Cardiac: 11 versus 10%
No CRF

Sparano et al. [37]IIIDocetaxel (75 mg/m2)
versus
Docetaxel (60 mg/m2) + PLD (30 mg/m2)
Stage IV
(100% ADR previous)
7 m
versus
9.8 m
20.6 m
versus
20.5 m
Cardiac: 4 versus 5%
PPS: 0 versus 24%

PLD: pegylated liposomal doxorubicin; LD: liposomal doxorubicin; ADR: adriamycin; EPI: epirubicin; CTX: cyclophosphamide; PFS: progression-free survival; OS: overall survival; RR: response rate; PPS: plantar-palmar syndrome; CHF: clinical heart failure; and CRF: cardiac risk factor.