三阴性乳腺癌的治疗进展课件.ppt

所有患者中位随访 11.0月（IQR：6.5-16.9） Results showed no significant difference in response rates between carboplatin and docetaxel in the overall patient group or in patients who received either agent as first?line therapy then crossed over to the other agent as second?line treatment.[1] The only significant difference was in patients with BRCA1/2 germline mutations; the response rate with carboplatin was 68% compared with 33% with docetaxel (P = .03). Although more of the overall population responded to docetaxel, the most striking result was the more than doubling of the response rate with carboplatin in those patients with BRCA1/2 germline mutations. This is compelling evidence that platinum-based agents can be particularly useful in patients with BRCA1/2 germline mutations. In patients with wild?type BRCA1/2, there was a trend toward improved response rate with docetaxel, but this was not statistically significant. * There was no significant difference in median progression-free survival (PFS) between carboplatin and docetaxel in all patients. There was also no significant difference in median overall survival (OS), which was disappointingly low—approximately 1 year in both arms of the study.[1] These are quite sobering data for the setting of first?line therapy for metastatic TNBC. * * HR, hazard ratio; Mos, months; OS, overall survival. Results from Study 301 showed no statistically significant improvement in OS for eribulin vs capecitabine, although it came close: the HR was 0.88, with a P value of .056 in favor of eribulin.[1] However, the widespread interpretation of these data was that the efficacy of eribulin was equivalent to capecitabine as second?line therapy for MBC. I support that interpretation. So, although these results did not show that eribulin was significantly superior to capecitabine in this setting, this very large study supports the use of either eribulin or capecitabine as second-line therapy for MBC after an anthracycline and a taxane.