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.

A joined analysis of two European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) studies to evaluate the role of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (Caelyx) in the treatment of elderly patients with metastatic breast cancer.

We have performed a retrospective analysis to evaluate the impact of age, using a 70 year cutoff, on the safety and efficacy of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (Caelyx) given at 60 mg/m(2) every 6 weeks (treatment A) or 50 mg/m(2) every 4 weeks (treatment B) to 136 metastatic breast cancer patients in two EORTC trials, of whom 65 were 70 years of age or older. No difference in terms of toxicity was observed between younger and older patients treated with the 4-week schedule, while a higher incidence of hematological toxicity, anorexia, asthenia, and stomatitis was observed in older patients when the 6-week schedule was used. Antitumor activity was not affected by age. In the older cohort of patients, no dependence was found between the incidence of grade 3-4 toxicity or antitumor activity and patients' baseline performance status, number and severity of comorbidities, or number of concomitant medications. The higher therapeutic index of Caelyx 50 mg/m(2) every 4 weeks makes it, of the two dose schedules investigated, the preferred regimen in the elderly.

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-paclitaxel: a safe regimen in terms of cardiac toxicity in metastatic breast carcinoma patients. Results from a European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer multicenter trial.

BACKGROUND: The potential cardiotoxicity of the doxorubicin-paclitaxel regimen, when paclitaxel is given shortly after the end of the anthracycline infusion, is an issue of concern, as suggested by small single institution Phase II studies. METHODS: In a large multicenter Phase III trial, 275 anthracycline naive metastatic breast carcinoma patients were randomized to receive either doxorubicin (60 mg/m(2)) followed 30 minutes later by paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2) 3-hour infusion; AT) or a standard doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide regimen (AC; 60/600 mg/m(2)). Both treatments were given once every 3 weeks for a maximum of six cycles. Close cardiac monitoring was implemented in the study design. RESULTS: Congestive heart failure (CHF) occurred in three patients in the AT arm and in one patient in the AC arm (P = 0.62). Decreases in left ventricular ejection fraction to below the limit of normal were documented in 33% AT and 19% AC patients and were not predictive of CHF development. CONCLUSIONS: AT is devoid of excessive cardiac risk among metastatic breast carcinoma patients, when the maximum planned cumulative dose of doxorubicin does not exceed 360 mg/m(2).

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

The effect of exemestane on serum lipid profile in postmenopausal women with metastatic breast cancer: a companion study to EORTC Trial 10951, 'Randomized phase II study in first line hormonal treatment for metastatic breast cancer with exemestane or tamoxifen in postmenopausal patients'.

BACKGROUND: The impact of aromatase inhibitors (AIs) on non-cancer-related outcomes, which are known to be affected by oestrogens, has become increasingly important in postmenopausal women with hormone-dependent breast cancer. So far, data related to the effect of AIs on lipid profile in postmenopausal women is scarce. This study, as a companion substudy of an EORTC phase II trial (10951), evaluated the impact of exemestane, a steroidal aromatase inactivator, on the lipid profile of postmenopausal metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The EORTC trial 10951 randomised 122 postmenopausal breast cancer patients to exemestane (E) 25 mg (n = 62) or tamoxifen (T) 20 mg (n = 60) once daily as a first-line treatment in the metastatic setting. Exemestane showed promising results in all the primary efficacy end points of the trial (response rate, clinical benefit rate and response duration), and it was well tolerated with low incidence of serious toxicity. As a secondary end point of this phase II trial, serum triglycerides (TRG), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL), total cholesterol (TC), lipoprotein a (Lip a), and apolipoproteins (Apo) B and A1 were measured at baseline and while on therapy (at 8, 24 and 48 weeks) to assess the impact of exemestane and tamoxifen on serum lipid profiles. Of the 122 randomised patients, those who had baseline and at least one other lipid assessment are included in the present analysis. The patients who received concomitant drugs that could affect lipid profile are included only if these drugs were administered throughout the study treatment. Increase or decrease in lipid parameters within 20% of baseline were considered as non-significant and thus unchanged. RESULTS: Seventy-two patients (36 in both arms) were included in the statistical analysis. The majority of patients had abnormal TC and normal TRG, HDL, Apo A1, Apo B and Lip a levels at baseline. Neither exemestane nor tamoxifen had adverse effects on TC, HDL, Apo A1, Apo B or Lip a levels at 8, 24 and 48 weeks of treatment. Exemestane and tamoxifen had opposite effects on TRG levels: exemestane lowered while tamoxifen increased TRG levels over time. There were too few patients with normal baseline TC and abnormal TRG, HDL, Apo A1, Apo B and Lip a levels to allow for assessment of E's impact on these subsets. The atherogenic risk determined by Apo A1:Apo B and TC:HDL ratios remained unchanged throughout the treatment period in both the E and T arms. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, exemestane has no detrimental effect on cholesterol levels and the atherogenic indices, which are well-known risk factors for coronary artery disease. In addition, it has a beneficial effect on TRG levels. These data, coupled with E's excellent efficacy and tolerability, support further exploration of its potential in the metastatic, adjuvant and chemopreventive setting.

Clinical staging versus laparotomy and combined modality with MOPP versus ABVD in early-stage hodgkin's disease: the H6 twin randomized trials from the european organization for research and treatment of cancer lymphoma cooperative group

info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Impact of tumor board recommendations on treatment outcome for locally advanced head and neck cancer

Background/Aims: To identify physician selection factors in the treatment of locally advanced head and neck cancer and how treatment outcome is affected by Tumor Board recommendations. Methods: A retrospective analysis of 213 patients treated for locally advanced head and neck cancer in a single institution was performed. All treatments followed Tumor Board recommendations: 115 patients had chemotherapy and radiation, and 98 patients received postoperative radiation. Patient characteristics, treatment toxicity, locoregional control and survival between these two treat- ment groups were compared. Patient survival was compared with survival data reported in randomized studies of locally advanced head and neck cancer. Results: There were no differences in comorbidity factors, and T or N stages between the two groups. A statistically significant number of patients with oropharyngeal and oral cavity tumors had chemoradiation and postoperative radiation, respectively (p < 0.0001). Grade 3-4 toxicities during treatment were 48 and 87% for the postoperative radiation and chemoradiation groups, respectively (p = 0.0001). There were no differences in survival, locoregional recurrences and distant metastases between the two groups. Patient survival was comparable to survival rates reported by randomized studies of locally advanced head and neck cancer. Conclusion: Disease sites remained the key determining factor for treatment selection. Multidisciplinary approaches provided optimal treatment outcome for locally advanced head and neck cancer, with overall survival in these patients being comparable to that reported in randomized clinical trials. Copyright © 2008 S. Karger AG.

Acquired epidermodysplasia verruciformis syndrome in HIV-infected pediatric patients: Prospective treatment trial with topical glycolic acid and human papillomavirus genotype characterization

SCOPUS: ar.j