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.

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.

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

An EORTC phase I study of epirubicin in combination with fixed doses of cyclophosphamide and infusional 5-fu (CEF-infu) as primary treatment of large operable or locally advanced/inflammatory breast cancer.

PURPOSE: The association of continuous infusion 5-fluorouracil, epirubicin (50 mg/m2 q 3 weeks) and a platinum compound (cisplatin or carboplatin) was found to be very active in patients with either locally advanced/inflammatory (LA/I) [1, 2] or large operable (LO) breast cancer (BC) [3]. The same rate of activity in terms of response rate (RR) and response duration was observed in LA/I BC patients when cisplatin was replaced by cyclophosphamide [4]. The dose of epirubicin was either 50 mg/m2 [ 1, 2, 3] or 60 mg/m2/cycle [4]. The main objective of this study was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of epirubicin when given in combination with fixed doses of cyclophosphamide and infusional 5-fluorouracil (CEF-infu) as neoadjuvant therapy in patients with LO or LA/I BC for a maximum of 6 cycles. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had LO or LA/I BC, a performance status 0-1, adequate organ function and were <65 years old. Cyclophosphamide was administered at the dose of 400 mg/m2 day 1 and 8, q 4 weeks and infusional 5-fluorouracil 200 mg/m2/day was given day 1-28, q 4 weeks. Epirubicin was escalated from 30 to 45 and to 60 mg/m2 day 1 and 8; dose escalation was permitted if 0/3 or 1/6 patients experienced dose limiting toxicity (DLT) during the first 2 cycles of therapy. DLT for epirubicin was defined as febrile neutropenia, grade 4 neutropenia lasting for >7 days, grade 4 thrombocytopenia, or any non-haematological toxicity of CTC grade > or =3, excluding alopecia and plantar-palmar erythrodysesthesia (this toxicity was attributable to infusional 5-fluorouracil and was not considered a DLT of epirubicin). RESULTS: A total of 21 patients, median age 44 years (range 29-63) have been treated. 107 courses have been delivered, with a median number of 5 cycles per patient (range 4-6). DLTs on cycles I and 2 on level 1, 2, 3: grade 3 (G3) mucositis occurred in 1/10 patients treated at the third dose level. An interim analysis showed that G3 PPE occurred in 5/16 pts treated with the 28-day infusional 5-FU schedule at the 3 dose levels. The protocol was subsequently amended to limit the duration of infusional 5-fluorouracil infusion from 4 to 3 weeks. No G3 PPE was detected in 5 patients treated with this new schedule. CONCLUSIONS: This study establishes that epirubicin 60mg/m2 day 1 and 8, cyclophosphamide 400mg/m2 day 1 and 8 and infusional 5-fluorouracil 200 mg/m2/day day 1-21. q 4 weeks is the recommended dose level. Given the encouraging activity of this regimen (15/21 clinical responses) we have replaced infusional 5-fluorouracil by oral capecitabine in a recently activated study.

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.

Workshop summary: Hormonal suppression in the neoadjuvant setting and advanced disease

SCOPUS: cp.j

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.

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.

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

SCOPUS: ed.j

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.

An EORTC-IDBBC phase I study of gemcitabine and continuous infusion 5-fluorouracil in patients with metastatic breast cancer resistant to anthracyclines or pre-treated with both anthracyclines and taxanes.

The aim of this study was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), dose-limiting toxicities (DLT), and potential activity of combined gemcitabine and continuous infusion 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients that are resistant to anthracyclines or have been pretreated with both anthracyclines and taxanes. 15 patients with MBC were studied at three European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer centres. 13 patients had received both anthracylines and taxanes. Gemcitabine was given intravenously (i.v.) on days 1 and 8, and 5-FU as a continuous i.v. infusion on days 1 through to 14, both drugs given in a 21-day schedule at four different dose levels. Both were given at doses commonly used for the single agents for the last dose level (dose level 4). One of 6 patients at level 4 (gemcitabine 1200 mg/m2 and 5-FU 250 mg/m2/day) had a DLT, a grade 3 stomatitis and skin toxicity. One DLT, a grade 3 transaminase rise and thrombosis, occurred in a patient at level 2 (gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 and 5-FU 200 mg/m2/day). Thus, the MTD was not reached. One partial response and four disease stabilisations were observed. Only 1 patient withdrew from the treatment due to toxicity. The MTD was not reached in the phase I study. The combination of gemcitabine and 5-FU is well tolerated at doses up to 1200 mg/m2 given on days 1 and 8 and 250 mg/m2/day given on days 1 through to 14, respectively, every 21 days. The clinical benefit rate (responses plus no change of at least 6 months) was 33% with one partial response, suggesting that MBC patients with prior anthracycline and taxane therapy may derive significant benefit from this combination with minimal toxicity.

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.

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.

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.