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.

Adjuvant therapy in elderly patients with breast cancer.

The elderly population has been neglected by the traditional approach to clinical breast cancer research. Elderly women have been underrepresented in breast cancer clinical trials, with the majority of studies being restricted to patients aged < 70 years. Elderly patients frequently have comorbidities and/or impaired organ function. These facts may often lead to death from causes other than cancer, thus nullifying any possible benefit of adjuvant treatment; furthermore, they render extrapolation of standard treatment recommendations to the elderly potentially hazardous, particularly with respect to chemotherapy. Therefore, specific clinical trials are needed to investigate adjuvant treatments tailored for the heterogeneous older population.

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.

An EORTC phase I study of capecitabine (Xeloda) in combination with fixed doses of cyclophosphamide and epirubicin (cex) as primary treatment for large operable or locally advanced/inflammatory breast cancer.

In breast cancer, chemotherapy regimens that include infusional 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) lead to high response rates, but require central venous access and pumps. To avoid these inconveniences, we substituted infusional 5-FU with capecitabine. The main objective of this study was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of capecitabine when given in combination with fixed doses of epirubicin and cyclophosphamide (100 and 600 mg/m(2) day 1 every (q) 3 weeks) as primary treatment for large operable or locally advanced/inflammatory breast cancer without distant metastasis. Capecitabine was escalated from 750 mg/m(2) twice a day (bid) to 1250 mg/m(2) bid from day 1 to day 14 in four dose levels. Dose escalation was permitted if 0/3 or 1/6 patients experienced dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). A total of 23 patients were included and 117 courses were administered. At dose level 4, 2 of 2 patients presented DLTs defining the MTD. A high rate of capecitabine treatment modification was required with capecitabine 1050 mg/m(2) bid (dose level 3). 19 patients achieved an objective response (83%). In conclusion, we believe that capecitabine 900 mg/m(2) bid (dose level 2) is the recommended dose in combination with epirubicin 100 mg/m(2) and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2). The acceptable toxicity profile and encouraging activity of this regimen warrant further evaluation.

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.

The bigger the better? or what we know and what we still need to learn about anthracycline dose per course, dose density and cumulative dose in the treatment of breast cancer.

Clinical Trial

Has the time come for genomic tests to guide the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in node-positive breast cancer?

SCOPUS: ed.j

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.

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.

Adjuvant portal-vein infusion of fluorouracil and heparin in colorectal cancer: A randomised trial

Background. There is conflicting evidence on the efficacy of regional adjuvant chemotherapy, via portal-vein infusion (PVI), after resection of colorectal cancer. We undertook a randomised controlled multicentre trial to investigate the efficacy of PVI (500 mg/m2 fluorouracil plus 5000 IU heparin daily for 7 days). Methods. 1235 of about 1500 potentially eligible patients were randomly assigned surgery plus PVI or surgery alone (control). The patients were followed up for a median of 63 months, with yearly screening for recurrent disease. The primary endpoint was survival; analyses were by intention to treat. Findings. 619 patients in the control group and 616 in the PVI group met eligibility criteria. 164 (26%) control-group patients and 173 (28%) PVI-group patients died. 5-year survival did not differ significantly between the groups (73 vs 72%; 95% CI for difference -6 to 4). The control and PVI groups were also similar in terms of disease-free survival at 5 years (67 vs 65%) and the number of patients with liver metastases (79 vs 77%). Interpretation. PVI of fluorouracil, at a dose of 500 mg/m2 for 7 days, cannot be recommended as the sole adjuvant treatment for high-risk colorectal cancer after complete surgical excision. However, these results cannot eliminate a small benefit when PVI is used at a higher dosage or in combination with mitomycin.

A randomised phase II study of two different schedules of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in metastatic breast cancer (EORTC-10993).

One hundred and sixteen women with measurable metastatic breast cancer participated in a randomised phase II study of single agent liposomal pegylated doxorubicin (Caelyx) given either as a 60 mg/m2 every 6 weeks (ARM A) or 50 mg/m2 every 4 weeks (ARM B) schedule. Patients were over 65 years of age or, if younger, had refused or been unsuitable for standard anthracyclines. The aims of the study were to evaluate toxicity and dose delivery with the two schedules and obtain further information on the response rate of liposomal pegylated doxorubicin as a single agent in anthracycline nai ve advanced breast cancer. Twenty-six patients had received prior adjuvant chemotherapy (including an anthracycline in 10). Sixteen had received non-anthracycline-based first-line chemotherapy for advanced disease. One hundred and eleven patients were evaluable for toxicity and 106 for response. The delivered dose intensity (DI) was 9.8 mg/m2 (95% CI, 7.2-10.4) with 37 (69%) achieving a DI of >90% on ARM A and 11.9 mg/m2 (95% CI, 7.5-12.8) with 37 (65%) achieving a DI of >90% on ARM B. The adverse event profiles of the two schedules were distinctly different. Mucositis was more common with the every 6 weeks regimen (35% CTC grade 3/4 in ARM A, 14% in ARM B) but palmar plantar erythrodysesthesia (PPE) was more frequent with the every 4 weeks regimen (2% CTC grade 3/4 in ARM A, 16% in ARM B). Confirmed objective partial responses by RECIST criteria were seen with both schedules; 15/51 (29%) on ARM A and 17/56 (31%) on ARM B. Liposomal pegylated doxorubicin showed significant activity in advanced breast cancer with a generally favourable side-effect profile. The high frequency of stomatitis seen with 6 weekly treatment makes this the less preferred of the two schedules tested.

Randomized, controlled trial investigating short-term health-related quality of life with doxorubicin and paclitaxel versus doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide as first-line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Breast Cancer Group, Investigational Drug Branch for Breast Cancer and the New Drug Development Group Study.

PURPOSE: To compare health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients with metastatic breast cancer receiving the combination of doxorubicin and paclitaxel (AT) or doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) as first-line chemotherapy treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients (n = 275) with anthracycline-naive measurable metastatic breast cancer were randomly assigned to 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. Dose escalation of paclitaxel (200 mg/m(2)) and cyclophosphamide (750 mg/m(2)) was planned at cycle 2 to reach equivalent myelosuppression in the two groups. HRQOL was assessed with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 and the EORTC Breast Module at baseline and the start of cycles 2, 4, and 6, and 3 months after the last cycle. RESULTS: Seventy-nine percent of the patients (n = 219) completed a baseline measure. However, there were no statistically significant differences in HRQOL between the two treatment groups. In both groups, selected aspects of HRQOL were impaired over time, with increased fatigue, although some clinically significant improvements in emotional functioning were seen, as well as a reduction in pain over time. Overall, global quality of life was maintained in both treatment groups. CONCLUSION: This information is important when advising women patients of the expected HRQOL consequences of treatment regimens and should help clinicians and their patients make informed treatment decisions.

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

Breast cancer therapies in development. A review of their pharmacology and clinical potential.

Although the management of breast cancer has improved over the past few decades, it remains an important challenge for the clinician. Cytotoxic chemotherapy and hormonotherapy, when given in the adjuvant setting, have a definitive though modest impact on the outcome of early-stage breast cancer. In metastatic disease, these therapies help to provide substantial palliation of symptoms but have a limited impact on survival. The discovery of vinorelbine and the taxanes, paclitaxel and docetaxel, certainly represented the most encouraging clinical development of the 1980s in breast cancer therapy. Several other new cytotoxic agents have been recognised for their potential in the treatment of this disorder. Many of them are only in a very early phase of their clinical development and it remains to be proven that they will have a major role in daily practice in the near future.