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.

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.