Lack of prognostic value of mean corpuscular volume with capecitabine therapy in metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Capecitabine is an oral fluoropyrimidine derivative which is frequently used alone or in combination regimens for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Although overall and progression free survivals have increased in recent years with the use of new generation drugs, predictive factors that would further improve the outcomes are needed. Previous studies have demonstrated the relation between post-treatment increase in mean corpuscular volume (MCV) and predicting therapy response as well as survival. The present study investigated the clinical impact of MCV elevation in metastatic breast cancer patients treated with capecitabine.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: The data of a total of 82 patients from three centers followed between June 2005 and June 2013 were retrospectively analyzed. The demographic data and hormone receptor status of the patients, as well as initial examination before and after treatment and data concerning progression were recorded. MCV ≥ 100 fl was considered as macrocytosis. Capecitabine was given at a dose of 2500 mg/m2 daily for 14 days every three weeks. Pre-treatment and post-treatment MCV and other parameters of complete blood count were recorded. Post-treatment initial evaluation was performed after 2 cycles of therapy.

RESULTS: The median age of the patients was 46.5 years (range 26-72 years) and 54% were premenopausal. Performance status was ECOG 0 and 1 in 81 (99%) patients. The median number of cycles for capecitabine therapy was 5 (min-max: 2-18). The median ΔMCV level (post-treatment values at sixth week - baseline) was 6.4. Whilst ΔMCV was ≥ 6.4 in 42 patients, it was <6.4 in 40 patients. Clinical benefit (complete response+partial response+stable disease) was observed in 37 (88%) of 42 patients with a median ΔMCV ≥ 6.4 and in 30 (75%) of 40 patients with ΔMCV <6.4 with no statistically significant difference (p=0.158). No significant difference was determined between the group with ΔMCV ≥ 6.4 and the group with ΔMCV <6.4 in terms of progression-free survival (11 vs 12 months) (p=0.55) and overall survival (20 months vs. 24 months) (p=0.11).

CONCLUSIONS: The identification of new predictive markers in metastatic breast cancer is very important. In some recent studies, increase in MCV has been suggested as a marker in tumor response. In the present study, however, no significant difference was determined between tumor response and increase in MCV. Further studies including higher numbers of patients are needed to determine whether increase in MCV is a predictive marker or not.