Evaluation of treatment outcomes of eribulin in recurrent and metastatic breast cancer at K hospital
Main Article Content
Abstract
This retrospective descriptive study enrolled 54 patients with recurrent metastatic breast cancer treated with eribulin monotherapy at K Hospital between January 2020 and December 2025, with the aim of evaluating the efficacy and toxicity profile of the regimen. The mean age was 54.78 ± 10.82 years old; 72.7% of patients had received three or more prior chemotherapy regimens; triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) was the predominant molecular subtype (33.3%) and the rate of hepatic metastases was notably high (58.2%). The objective response rate (ORR) was 31.5%, consisting exclusively of partial responses. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 2.8 months, with estimated PFS rates at 3 and 6 months of 37.0% (95% CI: 24.1 – 49.9%) and 35.2% (95% CI: 22.5 – 47.9%), respectively. The number of metastatic sites was a statistically significant predictor of treatment response (p = 0.036, Fisher's Exact Test). Immunohistochemical subtype was significantly associated with PFS (Log-rank p = 0.041), with the TNBC subgroup demonstrating the poorest prognosis. Regarding tolerability, the majority of adverse events were grade 1–2; grade 3–4 neutropenia occurred in 20.4% of patients and no treatment-related death was recorded. These findings provide preliminary evidence supporting the feasibility and safety of eribulin in real-world clinical practice in Vietnam.
Article Details
Keywords
Recurrent metastatic breast cancer, eribulin, triple negative breast cancer
References
2. Xiao W, Zheng S, Yang A, et al. The clinicopathological features and survival outcomes of patients with different metastatic sites in stage IV breast cancer. BMC Cancer. 2018; 18(1): 1091. doi:10.1186/s12885-018-4987-3.
3. Pivot X, Cortés J, Olivo M, et al. Prognostic and predictive factors of eribulin efficacy in heavily pretreated patients affected by metastatic breast cancer: correlation with tumor biology and previous therapies. Oncotarget. 2017; 8(54): 93036-93046. doi:10.18632/oncotarget.21739.
4. Twelves C, Cortes J, Vahdat L, et al. Perspectives on the mechanism of action and clinical application of eribulin for metastatic breast cancer. Future Oncol. 2019; 15(12): 1359-1370. doi:10.2217/fon-2018-0936.
5. Cortes J, Twelves C. Eribulin (Halaven): a new, effective treatment for women with heavily pretreated metastatic breast cancer. Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2013; 5(6): 321-329. doi:10.1177/1758834013505893.
6. 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. doi:10.1200/JCO.2013.52.4892.
7. Donoghue M, Lemery SJ, Yuan W, et al. Eribulin mesylate for the treatment of patients with refractory metastatic breast cancer: use of a “physician’s choice” control arm in a randomized approval trial. Clin Cancer Res. 2012; 18(6): 1496-1505. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-2149.
8. Pean E, Klaar S, Gil Berglund E, et al. The European Medicines Agency review of eribulin for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer: summary of the scientific assessment of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use. Clin Cancer Res. 2012; 18(17): 4491-4497. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-3075.
9. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009; 45(2): 228-247. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026.
10. Oken MM, Creech RH, Tormey DC, et al. Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am J Clin Oncol. 1982; 5(6): 649-655. PMID: 7165009.
11. National Cancer Institute, US Department of Health and Human Services. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), Version 5.0. Published November 27, 2017. Accessed June 4, 2026.
12. Daily K, Douglas E, Romitti PA, Thomas A. Epidemiology of de novo metastatic breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer. 2021; 21(4): 302-308. doi:10.1016/j.clbc.2021.01.017.
13. Zhao W, Wu L, Zhao A, et al. A nomogram for predicting survival in patients with de novo metastatic breast cancer: a population-based study. BMC Cancer. 2020; 20(1): 982. doi:10.1186/s12885-020-07449-1.
14. Nie H, Yuan Y, Li J, et al. Occurrence and distribution of bone metastases in 984 metastatic breast cancer patients. Transl Breast Cancer Res. 2021; 2:4. doi:10.21037/tbcr-20-64.
15. Gamucci T, Pizzuti L, Natoli C, et al; RetrOs Working Group. Predictive factors of eribulin activity in metastatic breast cancer patients. J Cell Physiol. 2018; 233(12): 9810-9820. doi:10.1002/jcp.26883.
16. Zhao Y, Xie N, Li W, et al. Real-world effectiveness of eribulin in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic breast cancer in China: a multicenter retrospective study. Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2021; 13:17588359211030210. doi:10.1177/17588359211030210.
17. Pasha N, Turner NC. Understanding and overcoming tumor heterogeneity in metastatic breast cancer treatment. Nat Cancer. 2021; 2(7): 680-692. doi:10.1038/s43018-021-00229-1.
18. Dell’Ova M, De Maio E, Guiu S, et al. Tumour biology, metastatic sites and taxanes sensitivity as determinants of eribulin mesylate efficacy in breast cancer: results from the ERIBEX retrospective, international, multicenter study. BMC Cancer. 2015; 15:659. doi:10.1186/s12885-015-1673-3.
19. Garrone O, Montemurro F, Saggia C, et al. Eribulin in pretreated metastatic breast cancer patients: results of the TROTTER trial - a multicenter retrospective study of eribulin in real life. SpringerPlus. 2016; 5:59. doi:10.1186/s40064-016-1700-0.