Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of Clinical Medicine logoLink to Journal of Clinical Medicine
. 2022 May 15;11(10):2783. doi: 10.3390/jcm11102783

Metronomic Chemotherapy for Advanced Prostate Cancer: A Literature Review

Shruti Parshad 1,2,†, Amanjot K Sidhu 1,2,†, Nabeeha Khan 1,2,†, Andrew Naoum 1,2, Urban Emmenegger 1,2,3,4,*
Editors: Guido Bocci, Giulio Francia, Petros Grivas
PMCID: PMC9147851  PMID: 35628909

Abstract

Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is the ultimately lethal form of prostate cancer. Docetaxel chemotherapy was the first life-prolonging treatment for mCRPC; however, the standard maximally tolerated dose (MTD) docetaxel regimen is often not considered for patients with mCRPC who are older and/or frail due to its toxicity. Low-dose metronomic chemotherapy (LDMC) is the frequent administration of typically oral and off-patent chemotherapeutics at low doses, which is associated with a superior safety profile and higher tolerability than MTD chemotherapy. We conducted a systematic literature review using the PUBMED, EMBASE, and MEDLINE electronic databases to identify clinical studies that examined the impact of LDMC on patients with advanced prostate cancer. The search identified 30 reports that retrospectively or prospectively investigated LDMC, 29 of which focused on mCRPC. Cyclophosphamide was the most commonly used agent integrated into 27/30 (90%) of LDMC regimens. LDMC resulted in a clinical benefit rate of 56.8 ± 24.5% across all studies. Overall, there were only a few non-hematological grade 3 or 4 adverse events reported. As such, LDMC is a well-tolerated treatment option for patients with mCRPC, including those who are older and frail. Furthermore, LDMC is considered more affordable than conventional mCRPC therapies. However, prospective phase III trials are needed to further characterize the efficacy and safety of LDMC in mCRPC before its use in practice.

Keywords: metronomic chemotherapy, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, cyclophosphamide, side effects

1. Introduction

Cancer is amongst the most significant contributors to disease burden worldwide, with cancer incidence expected to double by 2035 [1]. The global cancer burden is greatest in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), in which cancer incidence is rising most rapidly, where 75% of cancer deaths occur, yet where only 5% of the global spending on cancer is directed [1]. Prostate cancer follows this general trend as the second most common malignancy in men globally [2].

Localized prostate cancer is highly curable, but metastatic prostate cancer remains a fatal condition to date [3]. While prostate cancer is diagnosed at a median age of 66, prostate cancer-related deaths occur at a median age of 80 [4].

Because prostate cancer is an androgen-driven disease, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is the usual first-line therapy for metastatic prostate cancer, nowadays often combined with either docetaxel chemotherapy or androgen receptor signaling inhibitors (ARSi) such as abiraterone, apalutamide, or enzalutamide [5]. However, such patients will develop ADT-resistant prostate cancer eventually, referred to as metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), the lethal form of prostate cancer.

Docetaxel was established as the first life-prolonging and quality-of-life-improving therapy for mCRPC in 2004, providing a survival benefit of around three months [6,7]. This intravenous chemotherapeutic of the taxane family is usually administered as a three-weekly regimen at the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), which is associated with numerous acute and chronic side effects (e.g., myelosuppression, mucositis, and peripheral neuropathy). Thus, docetaxel is often not considered for older men who may have a lower tolerance than younger, healthier patients [8,9,10,11].

In recent years, abiraterone and enzalutamide have been approved as mCRPC treatment options, typically used in first line [3]. Both agents are relatively well tolerated, but acquired therapeutic resistance is the ultimate outcome of ARSi therapy in most instances [12,13]. Radium-223 and cabazitaxel chemotherapy represent treatment options for ARSi- and docetaxel-resistant mCRPC [14,15]. However, access to all these life-prolonging yet expensive prostate cancer therapies is limited, notably in LMIC [16,17]. Hence, there is a continued need for affordable mCRPC therapies, especially those suitable for the typically elderly and often patients with advanced prostate cancer who are frail. Low-dose metronomic chemotherapy (LDMC) possess many characteristics to fill this unmet need.

LDMC refers to the continuous administration of low doses of conventional chemotherapy drugs over a long period, usually via daily oral intake without scheduled treatment breaks, resulting in antiangiogenic and immunomodulatory anti-tumor effects amongst others [18]. Due to the low drug doses used, LDMC has a superior toxicity profile compared with MTD chemotherapy, including in people who are older and frail [19,20]. Furthermore, LDMC is relatively affordable owing to the use of off-patent drugs such as cyclophosphamide (CPA) and modest needs for monitoring treatment-associated side effects [21,22]. Herein, we summarize the findings of 30 studies on the role of LDMC in advanced prostate cancer.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Search Strategy and Study Selection

A systematic search of the PubMed, EMBASE, and MEDLINE electronic databases was conducted from inception up to 31 December 2021 to identify all relevant studies investigating the clinical impact of LDMC in patients with prostate cancer. The search strategy involved combining a methodological filter to specifically identify ‘full text articles’ using the search terms ‘metronomic’ and ‘prostate cancer.’ English-written literature was highly valued in the conduct of this review due to the ease of data extraction. However, non-English language was not a reason for exclusion. Additional studies were identified by screening the reference lists of review articles on LDMC. Titles and abstracts were screened for eligibility. The exclusion criteria are highlighted in Figure 1. Treatment regimens comprising at least one component administered without prespecified breaks were considered metronomic.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Flow diagram of search strategy.

2.2. Data Extraction and Statistical Analysis

Two independent reviewers extracted information on study type and design, country of study, number of patients, patient demographics, treatment details, response criteria used and response rates, survival data, adverse events, and fatalities. Statistical analyses were computed using RStudio (RStudio for Macintosh, version 1.1.463). Graphs were created with Microsoft® Excel for Mac 16.45 (www.microsoft.com), Draw.io (Version 16.5.1; https://app.diagrams.net), or GraphPad Prism (Version 9.3.1; https://www.graphpad.com).

3. Results

3.1. Study Selection

Among the 234 reports identified during the initial search, there were 132 duplicates, leaving 102 abstracts for screening. Following the removal of 49 studies comprising reviews, and pre-clinical and mechanistic studies, we analyzed the full text of 53 articles. A further 23 studies were excluded, including letters, surveys, case reports, and studies that were not truly metronomic or prostate cancer specific. Overall, we identified 30 studies on the clinical use of LDMC for prostate cancer, as depicted in Figure 1. Key study details are outlined in Table 1.

Table 1.

Study characteristics.

First Author Name Years Study Type Location N Age, Median (Range) Reference
Caffo et al. 2019 retrospective Italy 8 74 (56–95) [21]
Calcagno et al. 2016 prospective France 14 69 (57–82) [22]
Calvani et al. 2019 retrospective Italy 14 75 (56–87) [23]
Dabkara et al. 2018 retrospective India 16 74.5 (59–83) [24]
Derosa et al. 2014 prospective Italy 17 72 (52–79) [25]
Di Desidero et al. 2016 prospective Italy 17 73 (63–86) [26]
Di Lorenzo et al. 2007 prospective Italy 18 67 (46–75) [27]
Dickinson et al. 2012 retrospective UK 21 75 (N/A) [28]
Fontana et al. 2009 prospective Italy 23 74.5 (54–91) [29]
Fontana et al. 2010 retrospective Italy 24 83 (78–92) [19]
Gebbia et al. 2011 prospective Italy 25 72 (56–83) [30]
Glode et al. 2003 retrospective USA 25 72.6 (54–88) [31]
Hatano et al. 2011 retrospective Japan 25 71 (49–90) [32]
Jellvert et al. 2011 prospective Sweden 28 60 (45–75) [33]
Jeong & Lee 2017 prospective Korea 28 71 (49–88) [34]
Knipper et al. 2019 retrospective Germany 28 78 (N/A) [35]
Kubota et al. 2017 prospective Japan 29 74.2 (66–88) [36]
Ladoire et al. 2010 prospective France 32 74 (55–88) [37]
Lord et al. 2007 prospective UK 35 69 (51–86) [38]
Meng et al. 2012 retrospective China 38 72.8 (69–78) [39]
Nelius et al. 2010 prospective USA 39 68 (42–85) [40]
Nicolini et al. 2004 prospective Italy 41 72 (62–84) [41]
Nishimura et al. 2001 prospective Japan 43 70 (50–82) [42]
Noguchi et al. 2016 prospective Japan 49 68.6 (48–80) [43]
Orlandi et al. 2013 retrospective USA 52 81 (52–92) [44]
Tralongo et al. 2016 prospective Italy 57 77 (72–82) [45]
Vorob’ev et al. 2011 retrospective Russia 58 72.8 * (56–85) [46]
Wang et al. 2015 prospective USA 58 76 (50–86) [47]
Wozniak et al. 1993 prospective USA 74 67 (55–78) [48]
Yashi et al. 2014 prospective Japan 37 75 (67.8–79.3) [49]
Open in a new tab

* = mean; N = sample size, N/A = not available.

3.2. Study and Patient Characteristics

LDMC studies in the field of prostate cancer cover the time period from 1993 until 2019, with the majority (23/30; 77%) published from 2010 onwards (Figure 2a). More than half of the studies analyzed were conducted in Europe (17/30; 57%), notably with ten of those (33% of all studies) in Italy. Moreover, eight studies (27%) were conducted in Asia, whereas only five reports (17%) were from North America and none were from Asia or South America. Eleven studies (37%) were retrospective analyses. Among the nineteen prospective studies, two (11%) were phase I [27,36], one (5%) was phase I/II [47], and sixteen (84%) were phase II studies [22,25,26,29,30,33,34,37,38,40,41,42,43,45,48,49]. Across both prospective and retrospective phase II type studies, the majority (23/26, 88%) were single arm trials [19,21,22,23,25,26,28,29,30,31,32,33,35,37,38,40,41,42,44,48,49].

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

(a) Number of LDMC publications per year. (b) Number of patients per study. (c) Median patient age in years per study.

The 30 studies comprise information on 973 patients overall, with 28 (range 8 to 74) being the median number of patients per study (Figure 2b). The median patient age per trial ranged from 60 to 83 years, of which 72.8 years was the median of the reported medians (Figure 2c). Of the 30 studies included, only one reported on men with biochemically recurrent (i.e., non-metastatic and castration-sensitive) prostate cancer (Figure 3) [22]. All other studies focused on patients with mCRPC and variable treatment history. Seven (23%) studies included chemotherapy-naïve participants [25,32,33,38,45,46,48], three reported on study subjects with or without prior chemotherapy (typically docetaxel) exposure [28,31,42], and nineteen did not provide details on prior therapies other than the use of ADT [19,21,23,24,26,27,29,30,34,35,36,37,39,40,41,43,44,47,49].

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Prostate cancer stage of patients of LDMC studies. mCRPC: metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

3.3. Metronomic Treatment Regimens

CPA was integrated into 27 of the 30 (90%) regimens (Figure 4) [19,21,22,23,24,25,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,46,47,48,49]. While six studies (20%) described the effects of CPA monotherapy [21,22,38,41,43,46], in the majority of reports, CPA was partnered with corticosteroids (19/30; 63.3%) [19,23,24,25,27,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,37,39,40,42,44,48,49]. Among the CPA/corticosteroid combination therapy studies, eight (27%) did not add further agents [23,24,27,31,35,37,40,49], the COX2 inhibitor celecoxib was added in three (10%) trials [19,34,44], and eight (27%) studies included other drugs (i.e., methotrexate, tegafur-uracil, etoposide, estramustine phosphate, and capecitabine) [25,29,30,32,33,39,42,48]. In two studies, CPA was combined with either thalidomide or lenalidomide (7%) [28,47].

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

Details of the LDMC regimens. CPA = cyclophosphamide.

Of the studies without a CPA backbone, a variety of agents were used. Di Desidero et al. studied vinorelbine with dexamethasone [26], Kubota et al. studied cisplatin and tegafur-uracil [36], and Tralongo et al. studied docetaxel or vinorelbine [45]. Of note, 24 of 30 (80%) treatment regimens comprised oral medications only [19,21,22,23,24,26,27,28,31,32,33,34,35,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,46,47,49].

3.4. Outcomes

To compare the effectiveness of the various LDMC regimens used, we extracted prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rates and clinical benefit rates. Twenty-six trials provided information regarding patients’ PSA levels (Figure 5a) [19,21,22,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,44,45,46,47,49]. The mean ± SD PSA response rate (i.e., at least a 50% treatment-related PSA decrease compared with baseline) was 33 ± 19.1%, while another 32.2 ± 16.5% of patients achieved stable PSA readings. One third of study patients (33.5 ± 19.4%) did not experience any biochemical benefit from LDMC.

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

(a) Biochemical response assessment based on prostate specific antigen (PSA) across 26 informative studies. PSA response was defined as a ≥50% treatment-related PSA decrease compared with baseline. (b) Clinical benefit rate (%) across 26 informative studies.

The mean clinical benefit rate reported across 26 studies was 56.8 ± 24.5% (range from 8.3% to 95.0%) (Figure 5b). Of note, the publications used variable definitions of “clinical benefit”, with the most common being “sustained (≥6 months) absence of biochemical, clinical, and/or radiological progression”.

Twenty studies reported the median overall survival of patients on LDMC regimens [19,21,23,25,26,29,30,31,34,35,36,37,39,40,41,43,44,46,47,49]. Fontana et al. observed the shortest median survival of 3.3 (95%CI: 2.2–4.2) months [29], while Derosa et al. described the longest median survival of 33.3 (95%CI: 23–35.6) months [25]. The median of medians of reported overall survival was 16.2 months.

3.5. Toxicities and Adverse Events

Twenty of the thirty studies used varying versions of the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI-CTCAE) to grade toxicities observed among study participants undergoing LDMC [19,21,22,23,25,26,27,29,30,32,34,36,37,38,39,40,42,43,44,46]. One of the studies used criteria set by the World Health Organization (WHO) [45], while four studies reported adverse events without indicating the type of criteria used [28,47,48,49]. Five studies did not include information regarding toxicities and adverse events in relation to LDMC [24,31,33,35,41].

Figure 6 shows the percentage of study patients that experienced specific grade 3 or 4 (i.e., severe) toxicities reported in 15 informative clinical trials. Overall, hematological toxicities were more common than non-hematological adverse events. Instances of severe anemia were reported in nine trials, with a median of 8% of patients affected [21,27,28,34,37,38,42,43,45]. Grade 3/4 neutropenia was reported in eight studies, with a median of 5.5% of patients affected [25,27,32,37,38,43,45,47]. In the four studies listing severe lymphopenia, on average, around 20% of patients were affected. Asthenia was the most reported severe non-hematological adverse event, listed by five trials, with a median of 5.4% of patients affected [21,26,34,45,47].

Figure 6.

Figure 6

Open in a new tab

Heatmap of grade 3 and 4 toxicities observed in LDMC studies.

Vorob’ev et al.’s retrospective study compared the side effects of MTD docetaxel (75 mg/m2 administered intravenously every three weeks; n = 30 patients) versus LDMC CPA (50 mg by mouth daily; n = 25 patients) [46]. There were far fewer and less severe side effects reported in the CPA cohort (using NCI-CTCAE version 3) in comparison with patients treated with docetaxel (Figure 7). While a high percentage of patients treated with docetaxel were affected by diarrhea, alopecia, grade 1–3 anemia, and grade 1–4 neutropenia, patients in the CPA cohort were primarily affected by grade 1–2 anemia and grade 1–2 neutropenia, without severe (i.e., grade 3 or 4) cytopenia. Moreover, 16.7% of the docetaxel cohort stopped treatment due to adverse events, but no patient treated with CPA discontinued treatment because of side effects. Despite the distinct toxicity profiles, the mean overall survival was similar (>15 months) for both cohorts. However, MTD docetaxel resulted in a higher PSA response rate (46.7%) than LDMC CPA (12%). MTD docetaxel treatment was also slightly favored over LDMC CPA in terms of quality of life, measured with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) questionnaire, and rate of pain response, based on a visual analogue scale, although these results were not statistically significant.

Figure 7.

Figure 7

Open in a new tab

Depiction of the incidence of adverse events reported in patients undergoing conventional docetaxel versus metronomic cyclophosphamide therapy as reported by Vorob’ev et al., 2011 [46].

4. Discussion

The present literature review of 30 studies of LDMC for prostate cancer encompassing 973 patients illustrates several key findings. First, more than half of patients experience PSA responses or PSA stability and draw a clinical benefit from LDMC. Second, CPA is the most commonly used cytotoxic agent for metronomic purposes in prostate cancer (27/30 trials), as is the case in other cancer types [50]. The LDMC CPA studies characterize this classical alkylating agent as a convenient (oral mode of administration), well tolerated, and affordable (off-patent) treatment option that can be administered alone or in combination with other agents. Third, prostate cancer LDMC studies report low rates of severe (i.e., grade 3 or 4) adverse events. Hematological toxicity, notably lymphopenia, was more frequently observed than non-hematological adverse events. However, neither myelosuppression nor lymphopenia appear to be associated with an increased rate of infections. Furthermore, the low rate of typically mild LDMC-associated side effects compares favorably with the higher rate of adverse events seen with conventional MTD chemotherapy, including high-grade adverse events, as documented by Vorob’ev et al. [46].

Our study also reveals shortcomings and unmet needs regarding the clinical development of LDMC in prostate cancer. Foremost, there are no definite phase III clinical trials documenting the benefit of LDMC in prostate cancer, unlike in other malignancies such as breast, head and neck, and colorectal cancer [51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58]. Moreover, the majority of the LDMC prostate cancer studies were single-arm trials describing relatively small and often heterogeneous patient cohorts. Second, LDMC was almost exclusively studied in later stages of prostate cancer and often after multiple lines of prior therapies, whereas phase III trials in other tumor types suggest that LDMC might be particularly suitable for maintenance therapy in earlier tumor stages [52,55,57]. Third, there are no validated predictive markers of response to LDMC [59]. However, anecdotal evidence of responses to metronomic CPA in patients with DNA repair deficient mCRPC warrant further study [60].

In current times, with limited resources and growing expenses for the treatment of early as well as advanced prostate cancer, drug costs are becoming an increasingly important consideration when choosing treatments options [61,62,63]. With the incidence of cancer surging and the rising economic burden of cancer treatment worldwide, there is a need for affordable treatment options [2,64]. This is especially important for resource-limited countries, where mortality rates due to prostate cancer are rising, while decreasing in the more developed countries [65]. LDMC is an attractive treatment option in this respect. In Bocci et al.’s outcome analysis and cost comparison for conventional versus LDMC for metastatic breast cancer, LDMC was found to be more cost-effective due to several factors: LDMC (i) can be taken orally at home instead of administered during hospital visits, (ii) has lower incidences of adverse events, thereby decreasing related hospital and other healthcare visits, and (iii) is associated with lower administrative and health care provision costs due to a reduced need for medical attention [66].

Our systematic literature search did not identify studies comparing LDMC with ARSi therapy. Based on available evidence reported in the present analysis, it appears improbable that LDMC alone may provide a similar benefit to ARSi in advanced prostate cancer. Furthermore, ARSi are convenient oral albeit expensive medications that rarely result in severe side effects, even in patients who are older or frail [12,13,16,17]. However, LDMC might make ARSi therapy more affordable when integrated into intermittent ARSi regimens (e.g., LDMC maintenance therapy following ARSi induction). Aside from cost savings such LDMC use might also improve patient outcome by targeting ARSi-resistant prostate cancer cells [67,68]. Similarly, preliminary breast and ovarian cancer evidence suggests a possible role for combining LDMC using alkylating agents with poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in patients with DNA-repair-deficient prostate cancer [69,70].

When extracting information from the 30 studies of LDMC for prostate cancer numerous limitations became apparent. Aside from the aforementioned lack of randomized controlled phase III trials, one third of studies were retrospective, and the majority of reports comprised relatively small single-arm studies. The definition of outcome measures such as clinical benefit rate varied across studies, rendering comparisons difficult. Not all reports contained information on adverse events. Finally, a wide variety of metronomic regimens were tested, although the use of CPA was a common denominator.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, LDMC is a well-tolerated and cost-effective form of cancer therapy with documented anti-mCRPC effects. Because of mild toxicities and simple oral administration, LDMC can be regarded as an alternative treatment option especially for patients who are older or unfit and who are unable to tolerate conventional mCRPC therapies such as taxane chemotherapy. LDMC might also be considered in situations where ARSi are not available or affordable. Phase III trial evidence is needed to position LDMC with respect to other mCRPC therapies.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.P. and U.E.; methodology, S.P. and U.E.; validation, S.P., A.K.S., N.K. and U.E; formal analysis, S.P., N.K., A.N. and U.E.; investigation, S.P., A.K.S., N.K. and U.E.; writing—original draft preparation, S.P. and A.K.S.; writing—review and editing, S.P., A.K.S., N.K., A.N. and U.E.; visualization, S.P., A.K.S. and N.K.; supervision, U.E. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Funding Statement

The preparation of this manuscript was financially supported by the Joseph and Silvana Melara Cancer Fund, Toronto/ON, Canada.

Footnotes

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  • 1.Prager M.G., Braga S., Bystricky B., Qvortrup C., Criscitiello C., Esin E., Sonke G., Martínez G.A., Frenel J.-S., Karamouzis M., et al. Global cancer control: Responding to the growing burden, rising costs and inequalities in access. ESMO Open. 2018;3:e000285. doi: 10.1136/esmoopen-2017-000285. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Sung H., Ferlay J., Siegel R.L., Laversanne M., Soerjomataram I., Jemal A., Bray F. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2021;71:209–249. doi: 10.3322/caac.21660. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Sartor O., De Bono J.S. Metastatic Prostate Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2019;378:645–657. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1701695. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Boyle H., Alibhai S., Decoster L., Efstathiou E., Fizazi K., Mottet N., Oudard S., Payne H., Prentice M., Puts M., et al. Updated recommendations of the International Society of Geriatric Oncology on prostate cancer management in older patients. Eur. J. Cancer. 2019;116:116–136. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2019.04.031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Schulte B., Morgans A.K., Shore N.D., Pezaro C. Sorting Through the Maze of Treatment Options for Metastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. Educ. Book. 2020;40:198–207. doi: 10.1200/EDBK_278845. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Tannock I.F., De Wit R., Berry W.R., Horti J., Pluzanska A., Chi K.N., Oudard S., Théodore C., James N.D., Turesson I., et al. Docetaxel plus Prednisone or Mitoxantrone plus Prednisone for Advanced Prostate Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2004;351:1502–1512. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa040720. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Petrylak D.P., Tangen C.M., Hussain M.H., Lara P.N., Jones J.A., Taplin M.E., Burch P.A., Berry D., Moinpour C., Kohli M., et al. Docetaxel and Estramustine Compared with Mitoxantrone and Prednisone for Advanced Refractory Prostate Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2004;351:1513–1520. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa041318. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Lissbrant I.F., Garmo H., Widmark A., Stattin P. Population-based study on use of chemotherapy in men with castration resistant prostate cancer. Acta Oncol. 2013;52:1593–1601. doi: 10.3109/0284186X.2013.770164. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Leibowitz-Amit R., Templeton A.J., Alibhai S.M., Knox J.J., Sridhar S.S., Tannock I.F., Joshua A.M. Efficacy and toxicity of abiraterone and docetaxel in octogenarians with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. J. Geriatr. Oncol. 2015;6:23–28. doi: 10.1016/j.jgo.2014.09.183. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Horgan A.M., Seruga B., Pond G.R., Alibhai S.M., Amir E., De Wit R., Eisenberger M.A., Tannock I.F. Tolerability and efficacy of docetaxel in older men with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in the TAX 327 trial. J. Geriatr. Oncol. 2014;5:119–126. doi: 10.1016/j.jgo.2013.12.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Khalaf D.J., Sunderland K., Eigl B., Kollmannsberger C.K., Ivanov N., Finch D.L., Oja C., Vergidis J., Zulfiqar M., Gleave M., et al. Health-related Quality of Life for Abiraterone Plus Prednisone Versus Enzalutamide in Patients with Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer: Results from a Phase II Randomized Trial. Eur. Urol. 2019;75:940–947. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.12.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Alibhai S.M.H., Breunis H., Hansen A.R., Gregg R., Warde P., Timilshina N., Tomlinson G., Joshua A.M., Hotte S., Fleshner N., et al. Examining the ability of the Cancer and Aging Research Group tool to predict toxicity in older men receiving chemotherapy or androgen-receptor–targeted therapy for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Cancer. 2021;127:2587–2594. doi: 10.1002/cncr.33523. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Alibhai S.M.H., Breunis H., Feng G., Timilshina N., Hansen A., Warde P., Gregg R., Joshua A., Fleshner N., Tomlinson G., et al. Association of Chemotherapy, Enzalutamide, Abiraterone, and Radium 223 With Cognitive Function in Older Men with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer. JAMA Netw. Open. 2021;4:e2114694. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.14694. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Parker C., Nilsson S., Heinrich D., Helle S.I., O’Sullivan J.M., Fosså S.D., Chodacki A., Wiechno P., Logue J., Seke M., et al. Alpha Emitter Radium-223 and Survival in Metastatic Prostate Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2013;369:213–223. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1213755. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.De Bono J.S., Oudard S., Özgüroglu M., Hansen S., Machiels J.-P., Kocak I., Gravis G., Bodrogi I., Mackenzie M.J., Shen L., et al. Prednisone plus cabazitaxel or mitoxantrone for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer progressing after docetaxel treatment: A randomised open-label trial. Lancet. 2010;376:1147–1154. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61389-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Tannock I.F. Improving Treatment for Advanced Prostate Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2019;381:176–177. doi: 10.1056/NEJMe1906363. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Anton A., Tran B. Global Disparity in Access to Novel Therapeutics for Metastatic Prostate Cancer. JCO Oncol. Pract. 2022;18:57–59. doi: 10.1200/OP.21.00595. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Bocci G., Kerbel R.S. Pharmacokinetics of metronomic chemotherapy: A neglected but crucial aspect. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2016;13:659–673. doi: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2016.64. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Fontana A., Bocci G., Galli L., D’Arcangelo M., DeRosa L., Fioravanti A., Orlandi P., Barletta M.T., Landi L., Bursi S., et al. Metronomic cyclophosphamide in elderly patients with advanced, castration-resistant prostate cancer. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2010;58:986–988. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2010.02833.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Delos Santos K., Sivanathan L., Lien K., Emmenegger U. Metronomic Chemotherapy: Pharmacology and Clinical Applications. Springer; Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: 2014. Clinical Trials of Low-Dose Metronomic Chemotherapy in Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer; pp. 119–134. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Caffo O., Facchini G., Biasco E., Ferraù F., Morelli F., Donini M., Buttigliero C., Calvani N., Guida A., Chiuri V.E., et al. Activity and safety of metronomic cyclophosphamide in the modern era of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Futur. Oncol. 2019;15:1115–1123. doi: 10.2217/fon-2018-0715. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Calcagno F., Mouillet G., Adotevi O., Maurina T., Nguyen T., Montcuquet P., Curtit E., Kleinclauss F., Pivot X., Borg C., et al. Metronomic cyclophosphamide therapy in hormone-naive patients with non-metastatic biochemical recurrent prostate cancer: A phase II trial. Med. Oncol. 2016;33:89. doi: 10.1007/s12032-016-0806-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Calvani N., Morelli F., Naglieri E., Gnoni A., Chiuri V.E., Orlando L., Fedele P., Cinieri S. Metronomic chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide plus low dose of corticosteroids in advanced castration-resistant prostate cancer across the era of taxanes and new hormonal drugs. Med. Oncol. 2019;36:80. doi: 10.1007/s12032-019-1304-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Ganguly S., Dabkara D., Biswas B., Ghosh J. Metronomic therapy in metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer: Experience from a tertiary cancer care center. Indian J. Cancer. 2018;55:94. doi: 10.4103/ijc.IJC_346_17. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.DeRosa L., Galli L., Orlandi P., Fioravanti A., Di Desidero T., Fontana A., Antonuzzo A., Biasco E., Farnesi A., Marconcini R., et al. Docetaxel plus oral metronomic cyclophosphamide: A phase II study with pharmacodynamic and pharmacogenetic analyses in castration-resistant prostate cancer patients. Cancer. 2014;120:3923–3931. doi: 10.1002/cncr.28953. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Di Desidero T., DeRosa L., Galli L., Orlandi P., Fontana A., Fioravanti A., Marconcini R., Giorgi M., Campi B., Saba A., et al. Clinical, pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic results of a prospective phase II study on oral metronomic vinorelbine and dexamethasone in castration-resistant prostate cancer patients. Investig. New Drugs. 2016;34:760–770. doi: 10.1007/s10637-016-0385-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Di Lorenzo G., Autorino R., De Laurentiis M., Forestieri V., Romano C., Prudente A., Giugliano F., Imbimbo C., Mirone V., De Placido S. Thalidomide in combination with oral daily cyclophosphamide in patients with pretreated hormone refractory prostate cancer: A phase I clinical trial. Cancer Biol. Ther. 2007;6:313–317. doi: 10.4161/cbt.6.3.3664. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Dickinson P.D., Peel D.N.Y., Sundar S. Metronomic chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone in patients with metastatic carcinoma of the prostate. Br. J. Cancer. 2012;106:1464–1465. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2012.78. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Fontana A., Galli L., Fioravanti A., Orlandi P., Galli C., Landi L., Bursi S., Allegrini G., Fontana E., Di Marsico R., et al. Clinical and Pharmacodynamic Evaluation of Metronomic Cyclophosphamide, Celecoxib, and Dexamethasone in Advanced Hormone-refractory Prostate Cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 2009;15:4954–4962. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-3317. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Gebbia V., Serretta V., Borsellino N., Valerio M.R. Salvage Therapy with Oral Metronomic Cyclophosphamide and Methotrexate for Castration-refractory Metastatic Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate Resistant to Docetaxel. Urology. 2011;78:1125–1130. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2011.08.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Glode L.M., Barqawi A., Crighton F., Crawford E.D., Kerbel R. Metronomic therapy with cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone for prostate carcinoma. Cancer. 2003;98:1643–1648. doi: 10.1002/cncr.11713. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Hatano K., Nonomura N., Nishimura K., Kawashima A., Mukai M., Nagahara A., Nakai Y., Nakayama M., Takayama H., Tsujimura A., et al. Retrospective Analysis of an Oral Combination of Dexamethasone, Uracil plus Tegafur and Cyclophosphamide for Hormone-refractory Prostate Cancer. Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol. 2010;41:253–259. doi: 10.1093/jjco/hyq178. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Jellvert Å., Lissbrant I.F., Edgren M., Övferholm E., Braide K., Olvenmark A.-M.E., Kindblom J., Albertsson P., Lennernäs B. Effective oral combination metronomic chemotherapy with low toxicity for the management of castration-resistant prostate cancer. Exp. Ther. Med. 2011;2:579–584. doi: 10.3892/etm.2011.272. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Jeong Y., Lee J.L. Efficacy of metronomic oral cyclophosphamide with low dose dexamethasone and celecoxib in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Asia-Pac. J. Clin. Oncol. 2016;13:204–211. doi: 10.1111/ajco.12583. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Knipper S., Mandel P., Amsberg G., Strölin P., Graefen M., Steuber T. Metronomic chemotherapy with oral cyclophosphamide: An individual option for the metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patient? Urol. A. 2019;58:410–417. doi: 10.1007/s00120-018-0679-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Kubota H., Fukuta K., Yamada K., Hirose M., Naruyama H., Yanai Y., Yamada Y., Watase H., Kawai N., Tozawa K., et al. Feasibility of metronomic chemotherapy with tegafur-uracil, cisplatin, and dexamethasone for docetaxel-refractory prostate cancer. J. Rural Med. 2017;12:112–119. doi: 10.2185/jrm.2938. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Ladoire S., Eymard J.C., Zanetta S., Mignot G., Martin E., Kermarrec I., Mourey E., Michel F., Cormier L., Ghiringhelli F. Metronomic oral cyclophosphamide prednisolone chemotherapy is an effective treatment for metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer after docetaxel failure. Anticancer Res. 2010;30:4317–4323. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Lord R., Nair S., Schache A., Spicer J., Somaihah N., Khoo V., Pandha H. Low Dose Metronomic Oral Cyclophosphamide for Hormone Resistant Prostate Cancer: A Phase II Study. J. Urol. 2007;177:2136–2140. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2007.01.143. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Meng L.-J., Wang J., Fan W.-F., Pu X.-L., Liu F.-Y., Yang M. Evaluation of oral chemotherapy with capecitabine and cyclophosphamide plus thalidomide and prednisone in prostate cancer patients. J. Cancer Res. Clin. Oncol. 2012;138:333–339. doi: 10.1007/s00432-011-1101-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Nelius T., Klatte T., De Riese W., Haynes A., Filleur S. Clinical outcome of patients with docetaxel-resistant hormone-refractory prostate cancer treated with second-line cyclophosphamide-based metronomic chemotherapy. Med. Oncol. 2009;27:363–367. doi: 10.1007/s12032-009-9218-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Nicolini A., Mancini P., Ferrari P., Anselmi L., Tartarelli G., Bonazzi V., Carpi A., Giardino R. Oral low-dose cyclophosphamide in metastatic hormone refractory prostate cancer (MHRPC) Biomed. Pharmacother. 2004;58:447–450. doi: 10.1016/j.biopha.2004.08.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Nishimura K., Nonomura N., Ono Y., Nozawa M., Fukui T., Harada Y., Imazu T., Takaha N., Sugao H., Miki T., et al. Oral Combination of Cyclophosphamide, Uracil plus Tegafur and Estramustine for Hormone-Refractory Prostate Cancer. Oncology. 2001;60:49–54. doi: 10.1159/000055296. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Noguchi M., Moriya F., Koga N., Matsueda S., Sasada T., Yamada A., Kakuma T., Itoh K. A randomized phase II clinical trial of personalized peptide vaccination with metronomic low-dose cyclophosphamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Cancer Immunol. Immunother. 2016;65:151–160. doi: 10.1007/s00262-015-1781-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Orlandi P., Fontana A., Fioravanti A., Di Desidero T., Galli L., Derosa L., Canu B., Marconcini R., Biasco E., Solini A., et al. VEGF-A polymorphisms predict progression-free survival among advanced castration-resistant prostate cancer patients treated with metronomic cyclophosphamide. Br. J. Cancer. 2013;109:957–964. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2013.398. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Tralongo P., Bordonaro S., Di Mari A., Cappuccio F., Giuliano S.R. Chemotherapy in frail elderly patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer: A “real world” experience. Prostate Int. 2016;4:15–19. doi: 10.1016/j.prnil.2015.12.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Vorob’Ev N.A., Nosov A.K., Vorob’Ev A.V., Moiseenko B.M. Efficacy of standard docetaxel and metronomic cyclophosphamide chemotherapy in patients with hormone-resistant prostate cancer: Comparative analysis. Probl. Oncol. 2011;57:753–758. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Wang J., McGuire T.R., Britton H.C., Schwarz J.K., Loberiza F.R., Meza J.L., Talmadge J.E. Lenalidomide and cyclophosphamide immunoregulation in patients with metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer. Clin. Exp. Metastasis. 2015;32:111–124. doi: 10.1007/s10585-015-9696-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Wozniak A.J., Blumenstein B.A., Crawford E.D., Boileau M., Rivkin S.E., Fletcher W.S. Cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and 5-fluorouracil in the treatment of metastatic prostate cancer. A southwest oncology group study. Cancer. 1993;71:3975–3978. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19930615)71:12<3975::AID-CNCR2820711229>3.0.CO;2-D. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Yashi M., Nishihara D., Mizuno T., Yuki H., Masuda A., Kambara T., Betsunoh H., Abe H., Fukabori Y., Muraishi O., et al. Metronomic Oral Cyclophosphamide Chemotherapy Possibly Contributes to Stabilization of Disease in Patients with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: A Prospective Analysis of Consecutive Cases. Clin. Genitourin. Cancer. 2014;12:e197–e203. doi: 10.1016/j.clgc.2014.02.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Lien K., Georgsdottir S., Sivanathan L., Chan K., Emmenegger U. Low-dose metronomic chemotherapy: A systematic literature analysis. Eur. J. Cancer. 2013;49:3387–3395. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2013.06.038. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Crivellari D., Gray K.P., Dellapasqua S., Puglisi F., Ribi K., Price K.N., Láng I., Gianni L., Spazzapan S., Pinotti G., et al. Adjuvant pegylated liposomal doxorubicin for older women with endocrine nonresponsive breast cancer who are NOT suitable for a “standard chemotherapy regimen”: The CASA randomized trial. Breast. 2013;22:130–137. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2013.01.015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Colleoni M., Gray K.P., Gelber S., Láng I., Thürlimann B., Gianni L., Abdi E.A., Gomez H., Linderholm B.K., Puglisi F., et al. Low-Dose Oral Cyclophosphamide and Methotrexate Maintenance for Hormone Receptor–Negative Early Breast Cancer: International Breast Cancer Study Group Trial 22-00. J. Clin. Oncol. 2016;34:3400–3408. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.65.6595. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Nasr K.E., Osman M.A.M., Elkady M.S., Ellithy M.A. Metronomic methotrexate and cyclophosphamide after carboplatin included adjuvant chemotherapy in triple negative breast cancer: A phase III study. Ann. Transl. Med. 2015;3:284. doi: 10.3978/j.issn.2305-5839.2015.11.14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Rochlitz C., Bigler M., Von Moos R., Bernhard J., Matter-Walstra K., Wicki A., Zaman K., Anchisi S., Küng M., Na K.-J., et al. SAKK 24/09: Safety and tolerability of bevacizumab plus paclitaxel vs. bevacizumab plus metronomic cyclophosphamide and capecitabine as first-line therapy in patients with HER2-negative advanced stage breast cancer—A multicenter, randomized phase III trial. BMC Cancer. 2016;16:780. doi: 10.1186/s12885-016-2823-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Chen Y.-P., Liu X., Zhou Q., Yang K.-Y., Jin F., Zhu X.-D., Shi M., Hu G.-Q., Hu W.-H., Sun Y., et al. Metronomic capecitabine as adjuvant therapy in locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2021;398:303–313. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01123-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Patil V., Noronha V., Dhumal S.B., Joshi A., Menon N., Bhattacharjee A., Kulkarni S., Ankathi S.K., Mahajan A., Sable N., et al. Low-cost oral metronomic chemotherapy versus intravenous cisplatin in patients with recurrent, metastatic, inoperable head and neck carcinoma: An open-label, parallel-group, non-inferiority, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Glob. Health. 2020;8:e1213–e1222. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30275-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Simkens L.H.J., van Tinteren H., May A., Tije A.J.T., Creemers G.-J.M., Loosveld O.J.L., de Jongh F.E., Erdkamp F.L.G., Erjavec Z., van der Torren A.M.E., et al. Maintenance treatment with capecitabine and bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer (CAIRO3): A phase 3 randomised controlled trial of the Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group. Lancet. 2015;385:1843–1852. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62004-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Hagman H., Frödin J.-E., Berglund Å., Sundberg J., Vestermark L.W., Albertsson M., Fernebro E., Johnsson A. A randomized study of KRAS-guided maintenance therapy with bevacizumab, erlotinib or metronomic capecitabine after first-line induction treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: The Nordic ACT2 trial. Ann. Oncol. 2016;27:140–147. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdv490. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Cramarossa G., Lee E.K., Sivanathan L., Georgsdottir S., Lien K., Santos K.D., Chan K., Emmenegger U. A systematic literature analysis of correlative studies in low-dose metronomic chemotherapy trials. Biomarkers Med. 2014;8:893–911. doi: 10.2217/bmm.14.14. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Ling H.H., Lin Y.-C. Metronomic Oral Cyclophosphamide in 2 Heavily Pretreated Patients with Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer With Homologous Recombination Deficiency (HRD): A Case Report. Clin. Genitourin. Cancer. 2018;17:157–160. doi: 10.1016/j.clgc.2018.12.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Mittmann N., Liu N., Cheng S.Y., Seung S.J., Saxena F.E., Hong N.J.L., Earle C.C., Cheung M.C., Leighl N.B., Coburn N.G., et al. Health system costs for cancer medications and radiation treatment in Ontario for the 4 most common cancers: A retrospective cohort study. CMAJ Open. 2020;8:E191–E198. doi: 10.9778/cmajo.20190114. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Trogdon J.G., Falchook A.D., Basak R., Carpenter W.R., Chen R.C. Total Medicare Costs Associated with Diagnosis and Treatment of Prostate Cancer in Elderly Men. JAMA Oncol. 2019;5:60–66. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.3701. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Parmar A., Timilshina N., Emmenegger U., Smoragiewicz M., Sander B., Alibhai S., Chan K.K. A cost-utility analysis of apalutamide for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer. Can. Urol. Assoc. J. 2021;16:E126–E131. doi: 10.5489/cuaj.7495. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Simsek C., Esin E., Yalcin S. Metronomic Chemotherapy: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Clinical Experience. J. Oncol. 2019;2019:5483791. doi: 10.1155/2019/5483791. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Center M.M., Jemal A., Lortet-Tieulent J., Ward E., Ferlay J., Brawley O., Bray F. International Variation in Prostate Cancer Incidence and Mortality Rates. Eur. Urol. 2012;61:1079–1092. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.02.054. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Bocci G., Tuccori M., Emmenegger U., Liguori V., Falcone A., Kerbel R.S., Del Tacca M. Cyclophosphamide-methotrexate ‘metronomic’ chemotherapy for the palliative treatment of metastatic breast cancer. A comparative pharmacoeconomic evaluation. Ann. Oncol. 2005;16:1243–1252. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdi240. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Mason N.T., Burkett J.M., Nelson R.S., Pow-Sang J.M., Gatenby R.A., Kubal T., Peabody J.W., Letson G.D., McLeod H.L., Zhang J. Budget Impact of Adaptive Abiraterone Therapy for Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer. Am. Health Drug Benefits. 2021;14:15–20. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.West J.B., Dinh M.N., Brown J.S., Zhang J., Anderson A.R., Gatenby R.A. Multidrug Cancer Therapy in Metastatic Castrate-Resistant Prostate Cancer: An Evolution-Based Strategy. Clin. Cancer Res. 2019;25:4413–4421. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-0006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Kummar S., Wade J.L., Oza A., O’Sullivan C.G., Chen A.P., Gandara D.R., Ji J., Kinders R.J., Wang L., Allen D., et al. Randomized phase II trial of cyclophosphamide and the oral poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor veliparib in patients with recurrent, advanced triple-negative breast cancer. Investig. New Drugs. 2016;34:355–363. doi: 10.1007/s10637-016-0335-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Rivkin S.E., Moon J., Iriarte D.S., Bailey E., Sloan H.L., Goodman G.E., Bondurant A.E., Velijovich D., Wahl T., Jiang P., et al. Phase Ib with expansion study of olaparib plus weekly (Metronomic) carboplatin and paclitaxel in relapsed ovarian cancer patients. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer. 2019;29:325–333. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2018-000035. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Articles from Journal of Clinical Medicine are provided here courtesy of Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)

RESOURCES