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.
| Author | Trial phase | Treatment regimen | Patients’ characteristics | PFS | OS | RR | Toxicity |
|
O’Brien et al. [33] | III | PLD (50 mg/m2/4w) versus ADR (60 mg/m2/3w) | Stage IV | 6.9 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] | III | LD (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] | III | LD (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] | III | LD (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] | III | Docetaxel (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.
|