Long-term outcomes of neoadjuvant trastuzumab emtansine + pertuzumab (T-DM1 + P) and docetaxel + carboplatin + trastuzumab + pertuzumab (TCbHP) for HER2-positive primary breast cancer: results of the randomized phase 2 JBCRG20 study (Neo-peaks).

PURPOSE: The randomized phase 2 Neo-peaks study examined usefulness of neoadjuvant trastuzumab emtansine + pertuzumab (T-DM1 + P) following docetaxel + carboplatin + trastuzumab + pertuzumab (TCbHP) as compared with the standard TCbHP regimen. We previously reported that pCR rate after neoadjuvant therapy tended to be higher with TCbHP followed by T-DM1 + P. We conducted an exploratory analysis of prognosis 5 years after surgery. METHODS: Neoadjuvant treatment with TCbHP (6 cycles; group A), TCbHP (4 cycles) followed by T-DM1 + P (4 cycles; group B), and T-DM1 + P (4 cycles; group C, + 2 cycles in responders) were compared. Group C non-responders after 4 cycles were switched to an anthracycline-based regimen. We evaluated 5-year disease-free survival (DFS), distant DFS (DDFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Data from 203 patients (50, 52, and 101 in groups A-C, respectively) were analyzed. No significant intergroup differences were found for DFS, DDFS, or OS. The 5-year DFS rates (95% CI) were 91.8% (79.6-96.8%), 92.3% (80.8-97.0%), and 88.0% (79.9-93.0%) in groups A-C, respectively. TCbHP followed by T-DM1 + P and T-DM1 + P with response-guided addition of anthracycline therapy resulted in similar long-term prognosis to that of TCbHP. CONCLUSIONS: In patients who achieved pCR after neoadjuvant therapy with T-DM1 + P, omission of adjuvant anthracycline may be considered, whereas treatment should be adjusted for non-pCR patients with residual disease. T-DM1 + P with response-guided treatment adjustment may be useful for minimizing toxicity. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER AND DATE OF REGISTRATION: UMIN-CTR, UMIN000014649, prospectively registered July 25, 2014. Some of the study results were presented as a Mini Oral session at the ESMO Breast Cancer 2023 (Berlin, Germany, 11-13 May 2023).

Phase III study of bilayer sustained-release tramadol tablets in patients with cancer pain: a double-blind parallel-group, non-inferiority study with immediate-release tramadol capsules as an active comparator.

PURPOSE: We investigated whether twice-daily administration of a bilayer tablet formulation of tramadol (35% immediate-release [IR] and 65% sustained-release) is as effective as four-times-daily IR tramadol capsules for managing cancer pain. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-comparator, non-inferiority study enrolled opioid-naïve patients using non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or acetaminophen (paracetamol) to manage cancer pain and self-reported pain (mean value over 3 days ≥ 25 mm on a 100-mm visual analog scale [VAS]). Patients were randomized to either bilayer tablets or IR capsules for 14 days. The starting dose was 100 mg/day and could be escalated to 300 mg/day. The primary endpoint was the change in VAS (averaged over 3 days) for pain at rest from baseline to end of treatment/discontinuation. RESULTS: Overall, 251 patients were randomized. The baseline mean VAS at rest was 47.67 mm (range: 25.6-82.7 mm). In the full analysis set, the adjusted mean change in VAS was - 22.07 and - 19.08 mm in the bilayer tablet (n = 124) and IR capsule (n = 120) groups, respectively. The adjusted mean difference was - 2.99 mm (95% confidence interval [CI] - 7.96 to 1.99 mm). The upper 95% CI was less than the predefined non-inferiority margin of 7.5 mm. Other efficacy outcomes were similar in both groups. Adverse events were reported for 97/126 (77.0%) and 101/125 (80.8%) patients in the bilayer tablet and IR capsule groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: Twice-daily administration of bilayer tramadol tablets was as effective as four-times-daily administration of IR capsules regarding the improvement in pain VAS, with comparable safety outcomes. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: JapicCTI-184143/jRCT2080224082 (October 5, 2018).

Evaluation of a novel medical device for pegfilgrastim administration.

Pegfilgrastim, a pegylated form of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, has reduced the risk of developing febrile neutropenia, which is associated with an increase in severe infection and prolonged hospitalization. However, pegfilgrastim administration requires that patients visit hospital following cancer chemotherapy, thus imposing a burden on patients and those around them. An on-body injector (OBI), which automatically administers pegfilgrastim about 27 hours after chemotherapy, was used in this study. The OBI, which consists of a main pump unit and infusion set, is a drug delivery device designed to be attached to the patient's body, with a timer-controlled dosing function. This study was conducted in breast cancer patients to evaluate the safety of pegfilgrastim administered subcutaneously via the OBI. The study period consisted of screening and treatment observation periods involving four cycles of neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy with docetaxel plus cyclophosphamide. One 3.6-mg pegfilgrastim dose was administered subcutaneously via OBI during each cycle of chemotherapy. The study enrolled 35 patients, and no serious adverse events or febrile neutropenia occurred. Administration of pegfilgrastim was successfully completed at all times when the OBI was attached to the patient, and no safety concerns associated with OBI function arose. For outpatients requiring pegfilgrastim following cancer chemotherapy, the use of an OBI was considered to be a safe option to reduce the need for outpatient visits that restrict their activities of daily living.

Adjuvant Capecitabine for Breast Cancer after Preoperative Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Patients who have residual invasive carcinoma after the receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer have poor prognoses. The benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in these patients remains unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned 910 patients with HER2-negative residual invasive breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (containing anthracycline, taxane, or both) to receive standard postsurgical treatment either with capecitabine or without (control). The primary end point was disease-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival. RESULTS: The result of the prespecified interim analysis met the primary end point, so this trial was terminated early. The final analysis showed that disease-free survival was longer in the capecitabine group than in the control group (74.1% vs. 67.6% of the patients were alive and free from recurrence or second cancer at 5 years; hazard ratio for recurrence, second cancer, or death, 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53 to 0.92; P=0.01). Overall survival was longer in the capecitabine group than in the control group (89.2% vs. 83.6% of the patients were alive at 5 years; hazard ratio for death, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.90; P=0.01). Among patients with triple-negative disease, the rate of disease-free survival was 69.8% in the capecitabine group versus 56.1% in the control group (hazard ratio for recurrence, second cancer, or death, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.87), and the overall survival rate was 78.8% versus 70.3% (hazard ratio for death, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.90). The hand-foot syndrome, the most common adverse reaction to capecitabine, occurred in 73.4% of the patients in the capecitabine group. CONCLUSIONS: After standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy containing anthracycline, taxane, or both, the addition of adjuvant capecitabine therapy was safe and effective in prolonging disease-free survival and overall survival among patients with HER2-negative breast cancer who had residual invasive disease on pathological testing. (Funded by the Advanced Clinical Research Organization and the Japan Breast Cancer Research Group; CREATE-X UMIN Clinical Trials Registry number, UMIN000000843 .).

A randomized study comparing docetaxel/cyclophosphamide (TC), 5-fluorouracil/epirubicin/cyclophosphamide (FEC) followed by TC, and TC followed by FEC for patients with hormone receptor-positive HER2-negative primary breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Our primary objective was to determine the benefit/risk of anthracycline-free regimens by comparing docetaxel + cyclophosphamide (TC) alone, fluorouracil + epirubicin + cyclophosphamide (FEC) followed by TC, or TC followed by FEC as a primary treatment for patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative BC. METHODS: We randomized patients with stage I-III HR-positive HER2-negative, operable BC to receive either six cycles of TC (TC6), three cycles of FEC followed by three cycles of TC (FEC-TC), or three cycles of TC followed by three cycles of FEC (TC-FEC). The primary endpoint was the pathological response. Secondary endpoints included clinical response, type of surgical procedure, recurrence, death, and adverse events (by NCI-Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v.3.0). We conducted all statistical analyses using SAS Version 9.2. RESULTS: We enrolled 195 patients and analyzed data from 193 as the intention-to-treat population. Pathological complete response rates were numerically higher in the TC6 group than in the other groups (p = 0.321). The breast conservation rate was significantly higher in the TC6 group (73%) than in the other groups (FEC-TC 51%, TC-FEC 45%, p = 0.007). Adverse events with grade > 3 were not common in the treatment groups (p = 0.569). The overall and distant disease-free survivals were similar among the groups with median follow-up of 5.80 years. CONCLUSIONS: Despite similar long-term efficacy and safety profile, the higher breast conservation rate in the TC6 group suggests that preoperative chemotherapy without an anthracycline may benefit patients with HR-positive HER2-negative BC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMIN000003283 https://upload.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr_e/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000003873.

Multicenter Phase II Study of Intraoperative Radiotherapy of Early Breast Cancer: Ipsilateral Tumor Recurrence.

BACKGROUND: We performed a multicenter phase II study on the efficacy and safety of intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) as partial breast irradiation using multiple devices. METHODS: The primary endpoint was ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR). Key inclusion criteria were T < 2.5 cm, age > 50 years, surgical margin > 1 cm, intraoperative pathologically free margins, and sentinel node negative. After resection of the tumor, radiation at 21 Gy was delivered directly to the mammary gland employing an electron linear accelerator in the operating room, otherwise the patient was transported from the surgical suite to the radiation room. RESULTS: Overall, 142 patients were enrolled in this study and 129 underwent IORT. Stage 0: n = 4 (3.1%); stage I: n = 98 (76.0%); and stage IIA: n = 27 (20.9%). Luminal type: n = 116 (89.9%); triple-negative: n = 9 (7.0%); and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2: n = 4 (3.1%). Median follow-up time was 59.5 months (range 27.5-99.0), and the rate of IBTR was 3.1% (95% confidence interval 0.9-7.8). The toxicities included fibrosis in deep-connective tissue: grade 1, 78.1%; wound infection: grade 3, 1.6% and grade 2, 1.6%; and soft tissue necrosis: grade 3, 0.8% and grade 2, 0.8%. Recurrence in the breast occurred in four cases; the site of recurrence was just under the skin near the primary tumor site, with similar histology and subtype. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter phase II study, the rate of IBTR was low and IORT at 21 Gy was feasible in properly selected patients. It is important to use a careful surgical technique to reduce local recurrence because the skin is not included in the radiation field of IORT.

[Follicle-Stimulating Hormone and Estradiol Levels in Japanese Women Treated with Toremifene and Anastrozole for Two Years - A Retrospective Analysis of Data from a Prospective Randomized Trial].

The criteria for biological postmenopause have not been clearly defined, although determining the menopausal status is crucial for selecting agents for adjuvant endocrine therapy for patients with breast cancer. The long-term effects of adjuvant toremifene(TOR)and anastrozole(ANA)on serum follicle-stimulating hormone(FSH)and estradiol(E2)levels in Japanese women were examined using data from a prospective randomized study that mainly studied serum lipids and bone metabolism for 2 years. The study medications were administered orally daily at 40 mg and 1 mg for TOR and ANA, respectively. Sixty-nine patients were randomly assigned to the TOR group(n=36)or ANA group(n=33). FSH and E2 levels were measured using chemiluminescent immunoassay. The mean ages of the patients in the TOR and ANA groups were 62.5 and 60.0 years, respectively. None of the patients experienced menstruation during the course of the study. The baseline serum FSH level in the TOR group(69.6mIU/mL)decreased to 59.2%, 54.6%, and 50.0% at 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively, after therapy commencement. The FSH levels ranged from 8.6 to 68.1mIU/mL and were<20mIU/mL in 2 patients(9.5%; 8.6 and 14.4mIU/mL). The serum FSH levels in the ANA group did not change markedly over 24months. The baseline serum E2 level in the ANA group(11.6 pg/mL)decreased to 72.4%, 70.7%, and 61.2%at 6, 12, and 24months, respectively, after therapy commencement. The serum E2 level in the TOR group did not change markedly over 24 months. When switching to other endocrine agents as adjuvant therapy for patients with breast cancer treated with TOR, the serum FSH level decreased to half of the preinitiation level, and one-tenth of the FSH levels was<20mIU/mL, while the postmenopausal serum E2 level was maintained.

Control of nausea with palonosetron versus granisetron, both combined with dexamethasone, in patients receiving cisplatin- or anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide-based regimens.

PURPOSE: In a comparative phase 3 study involving 1114 Japanese patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), palonosetron (PALO) was found to be superior to granisetron (GRA) for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in the delayed phase. This post hoc analysis of the phase 3 study evaluated the efficacy of PALO for the control of nausea. METHODS: The proportion of patients without nausea was assessed at 24-h intervals during the acute phase (0-24 h), delayed phase (24-120 h), and overall (0-120 h). No nausea rates were also evaluated by sex, type of chemotherapy (cisplatin or doxorubicin/epirubicin plus cyclophosphamide [AC/EC]), and age (<55 vs. ≥55 years). Nausea severity was categorized using a 4-point Likert scale (0 = no nausea to 3 = severe nausea). RESULTS: The proportion of patients without nausea was significantly higher in the PALO arm than in the GRA arm in the delayed phase (37.8 % vs. 27.2 %; p = 0.002) and overall (31.9 % vs. 25.0 %; p = 0.0117). When analyzed by stratification factors, the proportion of patients without nausea was significantly higher in the PALO arm in the delayed phase and overall in patients who were female, younger, or treated with cisplatin and in the delayed phase in patients who were older or treated with doxorubicin or epirubicin plus cyclophosphamide (all p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: PALO was more effective than GRA in prophylaxis of HEC-induced nausea in the delayed phase and overall. In addition, PALO was more effective than GRA in young and female patients, who are at high risk of CINV, both in the delayed phase and overall.

Prognostic value of extracapsular invasion of axillary lymph nodes combined with peritumoral vascular invasion in patients with breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Extracapsular invasion (ECI) of metastatic axillary lymph nodes has been associated with aggressive nodal disease but its prognostic role in breast cancer is unclear. The present study evaluated nodal ECI as a predictor of breast cancer recurrence. METHODS: We evaluated 154 women with histologically proven node-positive breast cancer who were diagnosed with invasive ductal carcinoma, and investigated the relationships between ECI and recurrences and other clinicopathological factors, particularly vascular invasion and the number of lymph node metastases. RESULTS: The presence of ECI at positive nodes was significantly associated with the number of positive nodes, and with disease recurrence and survival in univariate (but not multivariate) analysis. Interestingly, all ECI(+) patients with distant metastases in our series had peritumoral vascular invasion (PVI), which may have reflected systemic disease; ECI with PVI of the primary tumor strongly predicted recurrent disease and shorter survival. CONCLUSION: ECI of axillary metastases combined with PVI indicates high tumor aggressiveness. Patients with ECI and PVI may be considered for stronger adjuvant therapies because of their high risk for distant recurrences.

Analysis of Ki-67 expression with neoadjuvant anastrozole or tamoxifen in patients receiving goserelin for premenopausal breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The increasing costs associated with large-scale adjuvant trials mean that the prognostic value of biologic markers is increasingly important. The expression of nuclear antigen Ki-67, a marker of cell proliferation, has been correlated with treatment efficacy and is being investigated for its value as a predictive marker of therapeutic response. In the current study, the authors explored correlations between Ki-67 expression and tumor response, estrogen receptor (ER) status, progesterone receptor (PgR) status, and histopathologic response from the STAGE study (S_tudy of T_amoxifen or A_rimidex, combined with G_oserelin acetate to compare E_fficacy and safety). METHODS: In a phase 3, double-blind, randomized trial (National Clinical Trials identifier NCT00605267), premenopausal women with ER-positive, early stage breast cancer received either anastrozole plus goserelin or tamoxifen plus goserelin for 24 weeks before surgery. The Ki-67 index, hormone receptor (ER and PgR) status, and histopathologic responses were determined from histopathologic samples that were obtained from core-needle biopsies at baseline and at surgery. Tumor response was determined by using magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography. RESULTS: In total, 197 patients were randomized to receive either anastrozole plus goserelin (n = 98) or tamoxifen plus goserelin (n = 99). The best overall tumor response was better for the anastrozole group compared with the tamoxifen group both among patients who had a baseline Ki-67 index ≥20% and among those who had a baseline Ki-67 index <20%. There was no apparent correlation between baseline ER status and the Ki-67 index in either group. Positive PgR status was reduced from baseline to week 24 in the anastrozole group. CONCLUSIONS: In premenopausal women with ER-positive breast cancer, anastrozole produced a greater best overall tumor response compared with tamoxifen regardless of the baseline Ki-67 index.

Clinicopathological significance of decreased galectin-3 expression and the long-term prognosis in patients with breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Galectin-3 expression is modulated in cancer cells, and that finding has led to the recognition of galectin-3 as a diagnostic or prognostic marker for various cancers, including breast cancer. This study investigated the correlation between galectin-3 expression and the clinicopathological features in patients with breast cancer, in order to determine the relevance and role of galectin-3 in breast cancer progression. METHODS: Galectin-3 expression was investigated immunohistochemically in 116 patients with breast cancer, and a statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS: Galectin-3 expression in breast cancer was significantly associated with tumor vascular invasion. However, galectin-3 expression was not associated with Ki-67 expression, which reflects tumor proliferation. Disease-free survival and long-term overall survival were significantly shorter for patients with reduced galectin-3 expression. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that the galectin-3 expression was associated with tumor vascular invasion and metastasis, suggesting that galectin-3 plays a critical role in tumor progression via an invasive mechanism but not via proliferation in breast cancer. Furthermore, reduced expression of galectin-3 is useful for predicting a long-term poor prognosis in patients with breast cancer.

Neoadjuvant anastrozole versus tamoxifen in patients receiving goserelin for premenopausal breast cancer (STAGE): a double-blind, randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Aromatase inhibitors have shown increased efficacy compared with tamoxifen in postmenopausal early breast cancer. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of anastrozole versus tamoxifen in premenopausal women receiving goserelin for early breast cancer in the neoadjuvant setting. METHODS: In this phase 3, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, multicentre study, we enrolled premenopausal women with oestrogen receptor (ER)-positive, HER2-negative, operable breast cancer with WHO performance status of 2 or lower. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive goserelin 3·6 mg/month plus either anastrozole 1 mg per day and tamoxifen placebo or tamoxifen 20 mg per day and anastrozole placebo for 24 weeks before surgery. Patients were randomised sequentially, stratified by centre, with randomisation codes. All study personnel were masked to study treatment. The primary endpoint was best overall tumour response (complete response or partial response), assessed by callipers, during the 24-week neoadjuvant treatment period for the intention-to-treat population. The primary endpoint was analysed for non-inferiority (with non-inferiority defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in overall response rates between groups being 10% or less); in the event of non-inferiority, we assessed the superiority of the anastrozole group versus the tamoxifen group. We included all patients who received study medication at least once in the safety analysis set. We report the primary analysis; treatment will also continue in the adjuvant setting for 5 years. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00605267. FINDINGS: Between Oct 2, 2007, and May 29, 2009, 204 patients were enrolled. 197 patients were randomly assigned to anastrozole (n=98) or tamoxifen (n=99), and 185 patients completed the 24-week neoadjuvant treatment period and had breast surgery (95 in the anastrazole group, 90 in the tamoxifen group). More patients in the anastrozole group had a complete or partial response than did those in the tamoxifen group during 24 weeks of neoadjuvant treatment (anastrozole 70·4% [69 of 98 patients] vs tamoxifen 50·5% [50 of 99 patients]; estimated difference between groups 19·9%, 95% CI 6·5-33·3; p=0·004). Two patients in the anastrozole group had treatment-related grade 3 adverse events (arthralgia and syncope) and so did one patient in the tamoxifen group (depression). One serious adverse event was reported in the anastrozole group (benign neoplasm, not related to treatment), compared with none in the tamoxifen group. INTERPRETATION: Given its favourable risk-benefit profile, the combination of anastrozole plus goserelin could represent an alternative neoadjuvant treatment option for premenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Postoperative Adjuvant Anastrozole for 10 or 5 Years in Patients With Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer: AERAS, a Randomized Multicenter Open-Label Phase III Trial.

PURPOSE: Treatment with an aromatase inhibitor for 5 years is the standard treatment for postmenopausal hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. We investigated the effects of extending this treatment to 10 years on disease-free survival (DFS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective, randomized, multicenter open-label phase III study assessed the effect of extending anastrozole treatment for an additional 5 years in postmenopausal patients who were disease-free after treatment with either 5 years of anastrozole alone or 2-3 years of tamoxifen followed by 2-3 years of anastrozole. Patients were allocated randomly (1:1) to continue anastrozole for an additional 5 years or stop anastrozole. The primary end point was DFS, including breast cancer recurrence, second primary cancers, and death from any cause. This study is registered with University Hospital Medical Information Network, Japan (UMIN) clinical trials registry (UMIN000000818). RESULTS: We enrolled 1,697 patients from 117 facilities between November 2007 and November 2012. Follow-up information was available for 1,593 patients (n = 787 in the continue group, n = 806 in the stop group), who were defined as the full analysis set, including 144 patients previously treated with tamoxifen and 259 patients who underwent breast-conserving surgery without irradiation. The 5-year DFS rates were 91% (95% CI, 89 to 93) in the continue group and 86% (95% CI, 83 to 88) in the stop group (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.82; P < .0010). Notably, extended anastrozole treatment reduced the incidence of local recurrence (continue group, n = 10; stop group, n = 27) and second primary cancers (continue group, n = 27; stop group, n = 52). There was no significant difference in overall or distant DFS. Menopausal or bone-related all-grade adverse events were more frequent among patients in the continue group than those in the stop group, but the incidence of grade ≥3 adverse events was <1% in both groups. CONCLUSION: Continuing adjuvant anastrozole for an additional 5 years after 5 years of initial treatment with anastrozole or tamoxifen followed by anastrozole was well tolerated and improved DFS. Although no difference in overall survival was observed as in other trials, extended anastrozole therapy could be one treatment choice in postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer.

A phase III open-label study to assess safety and efficacy of palonosetron for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in repeated cycles of emetogenic chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is of great importance for the completion of multiple cycles of cancer chemotherapy. Palonosetron is a second-generation 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist with proven efficacy for both acute and delayed CINV. This study was designed to assess the safety and efficacy of 0.75 mg palonosetron in repeated cycles of highly emetogenic chemotherapy or anthracycline-cyclophosphamide combination (AC/EC). METHODS: We gave 0.75 mg palonosetron to 538 patients 30 min prior to ≥ 50 mg/m(2) cisplatin or AC/EC on day 1. Prophylactic dexamethasone was administered on days 1-3. The primary endpoint was the incidence rate of adverse events (AEs). The secondary endpoint was complete response rate (CR, defined as no emesis and no rescue medication) throughout the study period. RESULTS: Treatment-related AEs were seen in 44% (237 of 538 patients). Serious AEs were seen in 4% (23 of 538 patients), all considered unrelated or unlikely to be related to palonosetron. Only one patient discontinued the study due to a treatment-related AE. No trend toward worsening of AEs was observed in subsequent cycles of chemotherapy. Complete response rates were maintained throughout repeated cycles. CONCLUSION: The extraordinary safety profile and maintenance of efficacy of 0.75 mg palonosetron combined with dexamethasone were demonstrated throughout repeated chemotherapy cycles.

Monthly versus 3-monthly goserelin acetate treatment in pre-menopausal patients with estrogen receptor-positive early breast cancer.

This study compared the efficacy and safety of a 3-monthly 10.8-mg depot goserelin (Zoladex(TM)) injection with the current 3.6 mg monthly dose in pre-menopausal Japanese women with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) early breast cancer. This was a multicenter, open-label, randomized study. Primary endpoint was a non-inferiority analysis (10.8/3.6 mg) of the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) of estradiol (E(2)) over the first 24 weeks. Secondary endpoints included E(2) and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) concentrations, menstruation, and safety and tolerability. In total, 170 patients were randomized to receive goserelin 10.8 mg every 3 months (n = 86) or 3.6 mg every month (n = 84). Mean AUCs for E(2) were similar between treatment groups (18.32 and 18.95 pg/ml·week for goserelin 10.8 and 3.6 mg, respectively). AUC ratio was 0.974 (95% confidence interval, 0.80, 1.19), indicating non-inferiority for goserelin 10.8 mg. Serum E(2) and FSH remained suppressed throughout the study and no patient experienced menses after week 16. No clinically important differences in safety and tolerability were observed between the two groups. In terms of E(2) suppression, 3-monthly goserelin 10.8 mg was non-inferior to monthly goserelin 3.6 mg in pre-menopausal women with ER+ breast cancer.

Effects of toremifene and anastrozole on serum lipids and bone metabolism in postmenopausal females with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer: the results of a 2-year multicenter open randomized study.

The potential long-term adverse effects on quality of life have to be considered when selecting agents for adjuvant hormonal treatment for postmenopausal patients with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. We performed a 2-year multicenter randomized study to assess the differences in the time course effects between toremifene (TOR) and anastrozole (ANA) on serum lipid profiles and bone metabolism. This study assessed the serum levels of triglycerides (TG), total cholesterol (TC), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), apolipoprotein A-1 (Apo A1), and apolipoprotein B (Apo B) as lipid profiles and bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (BAP) and the N-telopeptide of type-I collagen (NTX) as bone turnover markers in patients who received daily doses of 40 mg and 1 mg for TOR and ANA, respectively. A decreased serum level of TC, LDL-C, and Apo B was, respectively, observed at 6 months in 6.2, 12.9, and 13.8% of the patients who received TOR compared with the baseline. These decreases were maintained for at least 24 months. These lipid levels were not changed in those who received ANA. In the TOR patients, there was an increase in the serum level of HDL-C and Apo A1 at 6 months in 17.1 and 16.3%, respectively, which was maintained for at least 24 months, whereas these levels were almost stable in the patients who received ANA. Serum BAP decreased by 12.1% at 12 months and further decreased at 24 months and the serum NTX decreased by 22.0% at 6 months, which was maintained for at least 24 months in the patients who received TOR. In contrast, the serum BAP was increased by 26.0% at 6 months and by 29.2% at 12 months and the serum NTX increased by 21.3% at 24 months compared with baseline in those received ANA. However, the serum BAP increase was not significant at 24 months. TOR provides better effects than ANA in terms of lipid profiles and bone metabolism in postmenopausal females with early breast cancer.

Accuracy of intraoperative macroscopic diagnosis of sentinel node metastases in breast cancer: is accurate prediction possible?

BACKGROUND: Accurate intraoperative diagnosis of sentinel lymph node (SLN) metastases enables the selection of patients who require axillary lymph node dissection, thus avoiding an additional operation. In this study we investigated the accuracy of intraoperative macroscopic diagnosis of SLN metastases in patients with breast cancer. METHODS: SLNs from 276 breast cancer patients with clinically negative nodes were analyzed by macroscopic examination. The results of intraoperative macroscopic diagnosis were compared with those of frozen section analysis. RESULTS: The sensitivity, specificity, overall accuracy, and false negative rate of SLN biopsy in the assessment of node status were 82.1%, 100%, 96.4%, and 17.9%, respectively, for frozen section analysis, and 57.1%, 95.5%, 87.7%, and 42.9%, respectively, for macroscopic evaluation. Even in patients with node metastasis >7 mm, the false negative rate of macroscopic evaluation was 11.1%. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that macroscopic diagnosis is less effective in predicting lymph node status in breast cancer than frozen section analysis. These findings imply that intraoperative macroscopic evaluation of sentinel nodes is never predictive of the final pathology.

Implication of extracapsular invasion of sentinel lymph nodes in breast cancer: prediction of nonsentinel lymph node metastasis.

BACKGROUND: Accurate intraoperative diagnosis of sentinel lymph node (SLN) metastases enables the selection of patients who require axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). However, many patients with positive SLN do not show metastasis to other axillary lymph nodes. In this study, we investigated the factors that may determine the likelihood of additional positive nodes in the axilla when metastasis is found in the SLN. METHODS: SLN biopsy was performed on 276 patients with breast cancer with clinically negative nodes, of which 46 (16.6%) had positive SLNs and underwent ALND. Eleven (23.9%) of these 46 cases had additional metastasis in nonsentinel lymph nodes (NSLN). The clinical and pathological features of these cases were reviewed and statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS: All cases of positive nodes in NSLN in our series had extracapsular invasion (ECI) at the metastatic SLNs. Furthermore, the absence of ECI of SLN was significantly associated with the absence of metastasis in the NSLN (P < 0.001). As contributing factors, the absence of lymphatic invasion at the primary tumor, primary tumor size (<2 cm) and foci size in the metastatic SLN fell short of reaching statistical significance. Other factors, including histological type, pathological grade, estrogen receptor status, HER2 status, and age, were not significantly associated with metastatic involvement of NSLN. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the presence of ECI at metastatic SLNs is a strong predictor for residual disease in the axilla. These findings imply the possibility that ALND might be foregone in the treatment of patients with breast cancer without ECI at metastatic SLNs.

[Tolerability and safety of docetaxel plus cyclophosphamide as adjuvant chemotherapy for axillary lymph node-negative breast cancer--JECBC04 trial].

A recent foreign clinical trial showed that the combination of docetaxel plus cyclophosphamide (TC) is associated with a superior disease-free survival compared with doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide as adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. To assess the tolerability and safety of TC in a Japanese patient population, we conducted a multicenter, open-labeled clinical trial. Eligible patients were women who had axillary lymph node-negative breast cancer with surgical excision of the primary tumor. Patients were treated with 4 courses of TC (75 and 600 mg/m2, respectively), administered intravenously every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was feasibility, which was defined as the proportion of patients who completed 4 courses of the chemotherapy. From October 2006 to November 2007, 39 patients were enrolled and 32 were evaluable. Seven patients were excluded because of the inadequate treatment schedule. Feasibility was 96. 9%(31/32). One patient did not complete treatment because of the hypersensitivity. The mean administered dose was 73.2mg/m2 for docetaxel and 588.3mg/m2 for cyclophosphamide, respectively. The mean relative dose intensity was 96. 1% and 95.7%, respectively. The grade 3/4 toxicity including leukopenia, neutropenia, and febrile neutropenia was manageable. From these results, we consider that TC might become a standard non-anthracycline adjuvant regimen for operable breast cancer.

Palonosetron plus dexamethasone versus granisetron plus dexamethasone for prevention of nausea and vomiting during chemotherapy: a double-blind, double-dummy, randomised, comparative phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: Palonosetron is a second-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 (5-HT(3))-receptor antagonist that has shown better efficacy than ondansetron and dolasetron in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, and similar efficacy to ondansetron in preventing CINV in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. In this phase III, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, stratified, parallel-group, active-comparator trial, we assessed the efficacy and safety of palonosetron versus granisetron for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, both of which were administered with dexamethasone in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. METHODS: Between July 5, 2006, and May 31, 2007, 1143 patients with cancer who were receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (ie, cisplatin, or an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide combination [AC/EC]) were recruited from 75 institutions in Japan, and randomly assigned to either single-dose palonosetron (0.75 mg), or granisetron (40 microg/kg) 30 min before chemotherapy on day 1, both with dexamethasone (16 mg intravenously) on day 1 followed by additional doses (8 mg intravenously for patients receiving cisplatin or 4 mg orally for patients receiving AC/EC) on days 2 and 3. A non-deterministic minimisation method with a stochastic-biased coin was applied to the randomisation of patients. Covariates known to effect emetic risk, such as sex, age, and type of highly emetogenic chemotherapy, were used as stratification factors of minimisation to ensure balance between the treatment groups. Primary endpoints were the proportion of patients with a complete response (defined as no emetic episodes and no rescue medication) during the acute phase (0-24 h postchemotherapy; non-inferiority comparison with granisetron) and the proportion of patients with a complete response during the delayed phase (24-120 h postchemotherapy; superiority comparison with granisetron). The non-inferiority margin was predefined in the study protocol as a 10% difference between groups in the proportion of patients with complete response. The palonosetron dose of 0.75 mg was chosen on the basis of two dose-determining trials in Japanese patients. All patients who received study treatment and highly emetogenic chemotherapy were included in the efficacy analyses (modified intention to treat). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00359567. FINDINGS: 1114 patients were included in the efficacy analyses: 555 patients in the palonosetron group and 559 patients in the granisetron group. 418 of 555 patients (75.3%) in the palonosetron group had complete response during the acute phase compared with 410 of 559 patients (73.3%) in the granisetron group (mean difference 2.9% [95% CI -2.70 to 7.27]). During the delayed phase, 315 of 555 patients (56.8%) had complete response in the palonosetron group compared with 249 of 559 patients (44.5%) in the granisetron group (p<0.0001). The main treatment-related adverse events were constipation (97 of 557 patients [17.4%] in the palonosetron group vs 88 of 562 [15.7%] in the granisetron group) and raised concentrations of serum aminotransferases (aspartate aminotransferase: 24 of 557 [4.3%] vs 34 of 562 [6.0%]; alanine aminotransferase: 16 of 557 [2.9%] vs 33 of 562 [5.9%]); no grade 4 main treatment-related adverse events were reported. INTERPRETATION: When administered with dexamethasone before highly emetogenic chemotherapy, palonosetron exerts efficacy against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting which is non-inferior to that of granisetron in the acute phase and better than that of granisetron in the delayed phase, with a comparable safety profile for the two treatments. FUNDING: Taiho Pharmaceutical (Tokyo, Japan).