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.

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.

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

Evaluation of HER2, p53, bcl-2, topoisomerase II-alpha, heat shock proteins 27 and 70 in primary breast cancer and metastatic ipsilateral axillary lymph nodes.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease. Predictive biological markers (BM) of responsiveness to therapy need to be identified. Evaluation of BM is mainly done at the primary site. However, in the adjuvant therapy of breast cancer, the main goal is control of micrometastases. It is still unknown whether heterogeneity in the expression of BM between the primary site and its micrometastases exists. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the expression of some BM with potential predictive value from the primary breast cancer site and metastatic ipsilateral axillary lymph nodes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Focality (percentage of positive cells) and intensity staining scores were evaluated for each marker. Freshly cut sections (4 microm) from embedded blocks of breast cancer fixed in formalin or bouin were put onto superfrost slides (Menzel-Gläser). Protein expression was evaluated immunohistochemically (IHC) using monoclonal antibodies against: topo II-alpha (clone KiS1, 1 microg/ml, Roche) with a trypsine pre-treatment (P); HSP27 (clone G3.1, 1/60, Biogenex), HSP70 (clone BRM.22, 1/80, Biogenex) and HER2 (clone CB11, 1/40, Novocastra; without P); p53 (clone D07, 1/750, Dako) and bcl-2 (clone 124, 1/60, Dako) with citrate buffer as P. RESULTS: Overall, the percentage of discordant marker status in the primary tumour and its metastatic lymph nodes was 2% for HER2, 6% for p53, 15% for bcl-2, 19% for topoisomerase II-alpha, 24% for HSP27 and 30% for HSP70. For the subgroup of patients with positive BM in the primary tumour, the percentage of discordance was 6% for HER2, 7% for p53, 14% for bcl-2, 19% for HSP70, 21% for topoisomerase II-alpha and 36% for HSP27. For the subgroup of patients with positive BM in the lymph nodes, the percentage of discordance was 9% for bcl-2, 15% for HER2 and p53, 21% for topoisomerase II-alpha, 22% for HSP27 and 25% for HSP70. CONCLUSIONS: 1) No biological marker had 100% concordant results. 2) Although some discordant cases might be explained by the limitations of the IHC technique, future studies aiming to evaluate the predictive value of BM in the adjuvant therapy of breast cancer should take into account a possible difference in BM expression between the primary and the metastatic sites.

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.