Ovarian suppression using luteinizing hormonereleasing hormone agonists during chemotherapy to preserve ovarian function and fertility of breast cancer patients: A meta-analysis of randomized studies

Background: The role of temporary ovarian suppression with luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists (LHRHa) in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced premature ovarian failure (POF) is still controversial. Our meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) investigates whether the use of LHRHa during chemotherapy in premenopausal breast cancer patients reduces treatment-related POF rate, increases pregnancy rate, and impacts disease-free survival (DFS). Methods: A literature search using PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, and the proceedings of major conferences, was conducted up to 30 April 2015. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for POF (i.e. POF by study definition, and POF defined as amenorrhea 1 year after chemotherapy completion) and for patients with pregnancy, as well hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CI for DFS, were calculated for each trial. Pooled analysis was carried out using the fixed- and random-effects models. Results: A total of 12 RCTs were eligible including 1231 breast cancer patients. The use of LHRHa was associated with a significant reduced risk of POF (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.23-0.57; P < 0.001), yet with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 47.1%, Pheterogeneity = 0.026). In eight studies reporting amenorrhea rates 1 year after chemotherapy completion, the addition of LHRHa reduced the risk of POF (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.41-0.73, P < 0.001) without heterogeneity (I2 = 0.0%, Pheterogeneity = 0.936). In five studies reporting pregnancies, more patients treated with LHRHa achieved pregnancy (33 versus 19 women; OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.02-3.28, P = 0.041; I2 = 0.0%, Pheterogeneity = 0.629). In three studies reporting DFS, no difference was observed (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.49-2.04, P = 0.939; I2 = 68.0%, Pheterogeneity = 0.044). Conclusion: Temporary ovarian suppression with LHRHa in young breast cancer patients is associated with a reduced risk of chemotherapy-induced POF and seems to increase the pregnancy rate, without an apparent negative consequence on prognosis.

The impact of chemotherapy dose density and dose intensity on breast cancer outcome: what have we learned?

Optimising chemotherapy dose density and dose intensity are strategies aimed at improving outcomes in adjuvant therapy for patients with breast cancer. There are, in theory, at least five models allowing the delivery of a higher overall drug dose intensity. These are reviewed in this article and vary according to three main variables: the dose per course, the interval between doses and the total cumulative dose. Cyclophosphamide, anthracyclines and taxanes are among the most active agents for the treatment of breast cancer and, as such, they have been or are currently the focus of prospective, randomised clinical trials testing some of these dose-intensity models in the adjuvant setting. The results of recent trials suggest that anthracyclines, but not cyclophosphamide, are associated with better outcomes if used at higher doses per course and at higher cumulative doses. However, care has to be taken with premenopausal women where an increased dose of anthracycline per course but a reduced cumulative dose appears to produce a worse outcome. Moreover, decreasing the interval between doses, for anthracyclines and cyclophosphamide, does not seem to provide, so far, additional benefits for women with locally advanced breast cancer. This approach is not feasible with docetaxel, since an increase in dose density induces unwanted side-effects. These results represent our current state of knowledge, but clinical trials are being performed to evaluate further the effect of dose intensity, dose density and cumulative dose of key therapeutic agents on patient outcomes.

HER2: a 'predictive factor' ready to use in the daily management of breast cancer patients?

The past few years have witnessed an exponential increase in studies trying to identify molecular markers in patients with breast tumours that might predict for the success or failure of hormonal therapy or chemotherapy. HER2, a tyrosine kinase membrane receptor of the epidermal growth factor receptor family, has been the most widely studied marker in this respect. This paper attempts to critically review to what extent HER2 may improve 'treatment individualisation' for the breast cancer patient. Copyright (C) 2000.

Clinical outcome of breast cancer patients with liver metastases alone in the anthracycline-taxane era: a retrospective analysis of two prospective, randomised metastatic breast cancer trials.

Liver metastases have long been known to indicate an unfavourable disease course in breast cancer (BC). However, a small subset of patients with liver metastases alone who were treated with pre-taxane chemotherapy regimens was reported to have longer survival compared with patients with liver and metastases at other sites. In the present study, we examined the clinical outcome of breast cancer patients with liver metastases alone in the context of two phase III European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) trials which compared the efficacy of doxorubicin (A) versus paclitaxel (T) (trial 10923) and of AC (cyclophosphamide) versus AT (trial 10961), given as first-line chemotherapy in metastatic BC patients. The median follow-up for the patients with liver metastases was 90.5 months in trial 10923 and 56.6 months in trial 10961. Patients with liver metastases alone comprised 18% of all patients with liver metastases, in both the 10923 and 10961 trials. The median survival of patients with liver metastases alone and liver plus other sites of metastases were 22.7 and 14.2 months (log rank test, P=0.002) in trial 10923 and 27.1 and 16.8 months (log rank test, P=0.19) in trial 10961. The median TTP (time to progression) for patients with liver metastases alone was also longer compared with the liver plus other sites of metastases group in both trials: 10.2 versus 8.8 months (log rank test, P=0.02) in trial 10923 and 8.3 versus 6.7 months (log rank test, P=0.37) in trial 10961. Most patients with liver metastases alone have progression of their disease in their liver again (96 and 60% of patients in trials 10923 and 10961, respectively). Given the high prevalence of breast cancer, improved detection of liver metastases, encouraging survival achieved with currently available cytotoxic agents and the fact that a significant portion of patients with liver metastases alone have progression of their tumour in the liver again, a more aggressive multimodality treatment approach through prospective clinical trials seems worth exploring in this specific subset of women.

Guidelines on artificial nutrition versus hydration in terminal cancer patients

Whether a terminally ill cancer patient should be actively fed or simply hydrated through subcutaneous or intravenous infusion of isotonic fluids is a matter of ongoing controversy among clinicians involved in the care of these patients. Under the auspices of the European Association for Palliative Care, a committee of experts developed guidelines to help clinicians make a reasonable decision on what type of nutritional support should be provided on a case-by-case basis. It was acknowledged that part of the controversy related to the definition of the terminal cancer patient, since this is a heterogeneous group of patients with different needs, expectations, and potential for a medical intervention. A major difficulty is the prediction of life expectancy and the patient's likely response to vigorous nutritional support. In an attempt to reach a decision on the type of treatment support (artificial nutrition vs. hydration) which would best meet the needs and expectations of the patient, we propose a three-step process: Step I: define the eight key elements necessary to reach a decision: Step II: make the decision; and Step III: reevaluate the patient and the proposed treatment at specified intervals. Step I involves assessing the patient concerning the following: 1) oncological/clinical condition; 2) symptoms; 3) expected length of survival; 4) hydration and nutritional status; 5) spontaneous or voluntary nutrient intake; 6) psychological profile; 7) gut function and potential route of administration; and 8) need for special services based on type of nutritional support prescribed. Step II involves the overall assessment of pros and cons, based on information determined in Step I, in order to reach an appropriate decision based on a well-defined end point (i.e. improvement of quality of life; maintaining patient survival; attaining rehydration). Step III involves the periodic reevaluation of the decision made in Step II based on the proposed goal and the attained result.

Quality of care for cancer patients on home parenteral nutrition: Development of key interventions and outcome indicators using a two-round Delphi approach

Purpose: Clear recommendations on how to guide patients with cancer on home parenteral nutrition (HPN) are lacking as the use of HPN in this population remains a controversial issue. Therefore, the aims of this study were to rank treatment recommendations and main outcome indicators to ensure high-quality care and to indicate differences in care concerning benign versus malignant patients. Methods: Treatment recommendations, identified from published guidelines, were used as a starting point for a two-round Delphi approach. Comments and additional interventions proposed in the first round were reevaluated in the second round. Ordinal logistic regression with SPSS 2.0 was used to identify differences in care concerning benign versus malignant patients. Results: Twenty-seven experts from five European countries completed two Delphi rounds. After the second Delphi round, the top three most important outcome indicators were (1) quality of life (QoL), (2) incidence of hospital readmission and (3) incidence of catheter-related infections. Forty-two interventions were considered as important for quality of care (28/42 based on published guidelines; 14/42 newly suggested by Delphi panel). The topics 'Liver disease' and 'Metabolic bone disease' were considered less important for cancer patients, together with use of infusion pumps (p = 0.004) and monitoring of vitamins and trace elements (p = 0.000). Monitoring of QoL is considered more important for cancer patients (p = 0.03). Conclusion: Using a two-round Delphi approach, we developed a minimal set of 42 interventions that may be used to determine quality of care in HPN patients with malignancies. This set of interventions differs from a similar set developed for benign patients. © 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.

The prognosis of incurable cachectic cancer patients on home parenteral nutrition: A multi-centre observational study with prospective follow-up of 414 patients

Background: The role of home parenteral nutrition (HPN) in incurable cachectic cancer patients unable to eat is extremely controversial. The aim of this study is to analyse which factors can influence the outcome. Patients and methods: We studied prospectively 414 incurable cachectic (sub)obstructed cancer patients receiving HPN and analysed the association between patient or clinical characteristics and surviving status. Results: Median weight loss, versus pre-disease and last 6-month period, was 24% and 16%, respectively. Median body mass index was 19.5, median KPS was 60, median life expectancy was 3 months. Mean/median survival was 4.7/3.0 months; 50.0% and 22.9% of patients survived 3 and 6 months, respectively. At the multivariable analysis, the variables significantly associated with 3- and 6-month survival were Glasgow Prognostic Score (GPS) and KPS, and GPS, KPS and tumour spread, respectively. By the aggregation of the significant variables, it was possible to dissect several classes of patients with different survival probabilities. Conclusions: The outcome of cachectic incurable cancer patients on HPN is not homogeneous. It is possible to identify groups of patients with a ≥6-month survival (possibly longer than that allowed in starvation). The indications for HPN can be modulated on these clinical/biochemical indices. © The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved.

Paclitaxel versus doxorubicin as first-line single-agent chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer: a European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Randomized Study with cross-over.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of paclitaxel versus doxorubicin given as single agents in first-line therapy of advanced breast cancer (primary end point, progression-free survival ¿PFS) and to explore the degree of cross-resistance between the two agents. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three hundred thirty-one patients were randomized to receive either paclitaxel 200 mg/m(2), 3-hour infusion every 3 weeks, or doxorubicin 75 mg/m(2), intravenous bolus every 3 weeks. Seven courses were planned unless progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred before the seven courses were finished. Patients who progressed within the seven courses underwent early cross-over to the alternative drug, while a delayed cross-over was optional for the remainder of patients at the time of disease progression. RESULTS: Objective response in first-line therapy was significantly better (P =.003) for doxorubicin (response rate ¿RR, 41%) than for paclitaxel (RR, 25%), with doxorubicin achieving a longer median PFS (7.5 months for doxorubicin v 3.9 months for paclitaxel, P <.001). In second-line therapy, cross-over to doxorubicin (91 patients) and to paclitaxel (77 patients) gave response rates of 30% and 16%, respectively. The median survival durations of 18.3 months for doxorubicin and 15.6 months for paclitaxel were not significantly different (P =.38). The doxorubicin arm had greater toxicity, but this was counterbalanced by better symptom control. CONCLUSION: At the dosages and schedules used in the present study, doxorubicin achieves better disease and symptom control than paclitaxel in first-line treatment. Doxorubicin and paclitaxel are not totally cross-resistant, which supports further investigation of these drugs in combination or in sequence, both in advanced disease and in the adjuvant setting.

Exploring the safety of chemotherapy for treating breast cancer during pregnancy

Introduction: The diagnosis of breast cancer during pregnancy (BCP) represents a unique challenge to the patient, her family and the treating physician. The proper management of this critical clinical situation is crucial, and requires a multidisciplinary approach. A proper understanding of the safety of chemotherapy during pregnancy is a vital step to avoid detrimental consequences on the mother and the fetus.Areas covered: The aim of this article is to review the available evidence on the safety of chemotherapy administration in managing BCP.Expert opinion: The rule of thumb of chemotherapy - avoiding first trimester exposure and starting therapy in the second trimester - can be considered applicable for classic agents that are used in managing pregnant breast cancer patients. Anthracycline-based regimens are considered the standard of care in managing BCP. Recently, a growing amount of data suggests the safety of taxanes during pregnancy. Pregnancy in cancer patients should be considered as "high risk": once the systemic treatment is initiated, regular fetal monitoring is highly recommended. Emerging data are available on the relative long-term safety secondary to anthracycline exposure during pregnancy. A continued monitoring of the health of individuals with prenatal exposure to chemotherapy into adulthood is recommended for the possible occurrence of long-term side effects.

Adjuvant chemotherapy in elderly patients with breast cancer: a survey of the Breast International Group (BIG).

BACKGROUND: To collect oncologists' experience and opinion on adjuvant chemotherapy in elderly breast cancer patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A questionnaire was circulated among the members of the Breast International Group. RESULTS: A total of 277 oncologists from 28 countries participated in the survey. Seventy years is the age cut-off commonly used to define a patient as elderly. Biological age and the biological characteristics of the tumor are the most frequently used criteria to propose adjuvant chemotherapy to an elderly patient. Combination therapy with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and fluorouracil on days 1 and 8 is the most frequently prescribed regimen. Great interest exists in oral chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: There is interest among those who responded to the survey to validate a comprehensive geriatric assessment for use as a predictive instrument of toxicity and/or activity of anticancer therapy and to evaluate the role of a treatment option that is potentially less toxic and possibly as effective as polychemotherapy.

Doxorubicin and paclitaxel versus doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide as first-line chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer: The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 10961 Multicenter Phase III Trial.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of the combination of doxorubicin and paclitaxel (AT) with a standard doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) regimen as first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients were anthracycline-naive and had bidimensionally measurable metastatic breast cancer. Two hundred seventy-five patients were randomly assigned to be treated with AT (doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) as an intravenous bolus plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) as a 3-hour infusion) or AC (doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) plus cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2)) every 3 weeks for a maximum of six cycles. A paclitaxel (200 mg/m(2)) and cyclophosphamide (750 mg/m(2)) dose escalation was planned at cycle 2 if no grade >or= 3 neutropenia occurred in cycle 1. The primary efficacy end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points were response rate (RR), safety, overall survival (OS), and quality of life. RESULTS: A median number of six cycles were delivered in the two treatment arms. The relative dose-intensity and delivered cumulative dose of doxorubicin were lower in the AT arm. Dose escalation was only possible in 17% and 20% of the AT and AC patients, respectively. Median PFS was 6 months in the two treatments arms. RR was 58% versus 54%, and median OS was 20.6 versus 20.5 months in the AT and AC arms, respectively. The AT regimen was characterized by a higher incidence of febrile neutropenia, 32% versus 9% in the AC arm. CONCLUSION: No differences in the efficacy study end points were observed between the two treatment arms. Treatment-related toxicity compromised doxorubicin-delivered dose-intensity in the paclitaxel-based regimen

Incidence of febrile neutropenia and neutropenic infections in elderly patients receiving anthracycline-based chemotherapy for breast cancer without primary prophylaxis with colony-stimulating factors

There is concern about the potential increase of hematological toxicity in elderly patients treated with chemotherapy. Recently, primary prophylaxis with colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) was proposed for elderly patients receiving moderately toxic chemotherapy. However, evidence for the benefits of this primary prophylaxis for elderly breast cancer patients is currently lacking. We retrospectively analyzed the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) and neutropenic infections in elderly breast cancer patients receiving anthracycline-based chemotherapy without primary prophylaxis with colony-stimulating factors. In addition, we assessed the direct costs of hospitalization for these complications. Febrile neutropenia or neutropenic infection occurred in 13% of the 46 patients. Further studies are needed to adequately evaluate the risk of neutropenic complications (NC) in elderly patients receiving standard-dose chemotherapy for breast cancer and the potential benefits of primary prophylaxis with colony-stimulating factors. © 2004 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

A feasibility study evaluating docetaxel-based sequential and combination regimens in the adjuvant therapy of node-positive breast cancer

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Docetaxel is an active agent in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. We evaluated the feasibility of docetaxel-based sequential and combination regimens as adjuvant therapies for patients with node-positive breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three consecutive groups of patients with node-positive breast cancer or locally-advanced disease, aged < or = 70 years, received one of the following regimens: a) sequential A-->T-->CMF: doxorubicin 75 mg/m2 q 3 weeks x 3, followed by docetaxel 100 mg/m2 q 3 weeks x 3, followed by i.v. CMF days 1 + 8 q 4 weeks x 3; b) sequential accelerated A-->T-->CMF: A and T were administered at the same doses q 2 weeks; c) combination therapy: doxorubicin 50 mg/m2 + docetaxel 75 mg/m2 q 3 weeks x 4, followed by CMF x 4. When indicated, radiotherapy was administered during or after CMF, and tamoxifen started after the end of CMF. RESULTS: Seventy-nine patients have been treated. Median age was 48 years. A 30% rate of early treatment discontinuation was observed in patients receiving the sequential accelerated therapy (23% during A-->T), due principally to severe skin toxicity. Median relative dose-intensity was 100% in the three treatment arms. The incidence of G3-G4 major toxicities by treated patients, was as follows: skin toxicity a: 5%; b: 27%; c: 0%; stomatitis a: 20%; b: 20%; c: 3%. The incidence of neutropenic fever was a: 30%; b: 13%; c: 48%. After a median follow-up of 18 months, no late toxicity has been reported. CONCLUSIONS: The accelerated sequential A-->T-->CMF treatment is not feasible due to an excess of skin toxicity. The sequential non accelerated and the combination regimens are feasible and under evaluation in a phase III trial of adjuvant therapy.

3-year results of docetaxel-based sequential and combination regimens in the adjuvant therapy of node-positive breast cancer: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Docetaxel has proven efficacy in metastatic breast cancer. In this pilot study, we explored the efficacy/feasibility of docetaxel-based sequential and combination regimens as adjuvant therapy of node-positive breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From March 1996 till March 1998, four consecutive groups of patients with stages II and III breast cancer, aged < or = 70 years, received one of the following regimens: a) sequential Doxorubicin (A) --> Docetaxel (T) --> CMF (Cyclophosphamide+Methotrexate+5-Fluorouracil): A 75 mg/m q 3 wks x 3, followed by T100 mg/m2 q 3 wks x 3, followed by i.v. CMF Days 1+8 q 4 wks x 3; b) sequential accelerated A --> T --> CMF: A and T administered at the same doses q 2 wks with Lenograstin support; c) combination therapy: A 50 mg/m2 + T 75 mg/m2 q 3 wks x 4, followed by CMF x 4; d) sequential T --> A --> CMF: T and A, administered as in group a), with the reverse sequence. When indicated, radiotherapy was administered during or after CMF, and Tamoxifen after CMF. RESULTS: Ninety-three patients were treated. The median age was 48 years (29-66) and the median number of positive axillary nodes was 6 (1-25). Tumors were operable in 94% and locally advanced in 6% of cases. Pathological tumor size was >2 cm in 72% of cases. There were 21 relapses, (18 systemic, 3 locoregional) and 11 patients (12%) have died from disease progression. At median follow-up of 39 months (6-57), overall survival (OS) was 87% (95% CI, 79-94%) and disease-free survival (DFS) was 76% (95% CI, 67%-85%). CONCLUSION: The efficacy of these docetaxel-based regimens, in terms of OS and DFS, appears to be at least as good as standard anthracycline-based adjuvant chemotherapy (CT), in similar high-risk patient populations.

Evaluation of tumor response, disease control, progression-free survival, and time to progression as potential surrogate end points in metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Overall survival (OS) can be observed only after prolonged follow-up, and any potential effect of first-line therapies on OS may be confounded by the effects of subsequent therapy. We investigated whether tumor response, disease control, progression-free survival (PFS), or time to progression (TTP) could be considered a valid surrogate for OS to assess the benefits of first-line therapies for patients with metastatic breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Individual patient data were collected on 3,953 patients in 11 randomized trials that compared an anthracycline (alone or in combination) with a taxane (alone or in combination with an anthracycline). Surrogacy was assessed through the correlation between the end points as well as through the correlation between the treatment effects on the end points. RESULTS: Tumor response (survival odds ratio [OR], 6.2; 95% CI, 5.3 to 7.0) and disease control (survival OR, 5.5; 95% CI, 4.8 to 6.3) were strongly associated with OS. PFS (rank correlation coefficient, 0.688; 95% CI, 0.686 to 0.690) and TTP (rank correlation coefficient, 0.682; 95% CI, 0.680 to 0.684) were moderately associated with OS. Response log ORs were strongly correlated with PFS log hazard ratios (linear coefficient [rho], 0.96; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.19). Response and disease control log ORs and PFS and TTP log hazard ratios were poorly correlated with log hazard ratios for OS, but the confidence limits of rho were too wide to be informative. CONCLUSION: No end point could be demonstrated as a good surrogate for OS in these trials. Tumor response may be an acceptable surrogate for PFS.