Different Methods of Capecitabine in Patients With Non-PCR After Neoadjuvant Therapy for TNBC

Condition(s) studied

Investigational drug(s) / intervention(s)

capecitabine: different methods of treatment for capecitabine

Study summary

The survival rate of patients with pathological complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant therapy was significantly better than that of patients with tumor residue, that is, non-pCR patients. Therefore, studies have confirmed that intensive adjuvant therapy for patients with non-pCR after neoadjuvant chemotherapy can further improve the survival of this population. Previous studies have given capecitabine treatment to such patients as standard. However, it is unknown whether capecitabine intensification still has the same status under the premise that most patients receive immunotherapy at the neoadjuvant stage; Whether there are differences in the efficacy and safety of capecitabine standard 6-8 cycle intensive regimen and capecitabine metronomic chemotherapy are practical problems encountered in clinical practice. This study explored the efficacy and safety of 6-8 cycles of full dose capecitabine intensive therapy compared with 1-year capecitabine metronomic chemotherapy in patients with T2 and above and/or lymph node positive early triple negative breast cancer who still had invasive tumor after neoadjuvant therapy.

Eligibility

Primary outcome measure(s)

• disease free survival — 5 years
  The time from study enrollment to the first occurrence of the following events defined as failure, including ipsilateral local recurrence, contralateral breast cancer, distant recurrence or death from any cause.

Trial sites (1)

More Shu Wang trials in China

Other trials for the same condition