Three-Year Follow-up of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy With or Without Anthracyclines in the Presence of Dual ERBB2 Blockade in Patients With ERBB2-Positive Breast Cancer: A Secondary Analysis of the TRAIN-2 Randomized, Phase 3 Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Primary analysis of the TRAIN-2 study showed high pathologic complete response rates after neoadjuvant chemotherapy with or without anthracyclines plus dual ERBB2 (formerly HER2) blockade. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate 3-year event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) of an anthracycline-free and anthracycline-containing regimen with dual ERBB2 blockade in patients with stage II and III ERBB2-positive breast cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 438 patients with stage II and III ERBB2-positive breast cancer were enrolled in this randomized, clinical, open-label phase 3 trial across 37 hospitals in the Netherlands from December 9, 2013, until January 14, 2016. Follow-up analyses were performed after a median follow-up of 48.8 months (interquartile range, 44.1-55.2 months). Analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly assigned on a 1:1 basis, stratified by age, tumor stage, nodal stage, and estrogen receptor status, to receive 3 cycles of fluorouracil (500 mg/m2), epirubicin (90 mg/m2), and cyclophosphamide (500 mg/m2), followed by 6 cycles of paclitaxel and carboplatin or 9 cycles of paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 days 1 and 8) and carboplatin (area under the concentration-time curve, 6 mg/mL/min). Both groups received trastuzumab (6 mg/kg; loading dose 8 mg/kg) and pertuzumab (420 mg intravenously; loading dose 840 mg) every 3 weeks. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Three-year EFS, OS, and safety. RESULTS: A total of 438 women were randomized, with 219 per group (anthracycline group, median age, 49 years [interquartile range, 43-55 years]; and nonanthracycline group, median age, 48 years [interquartile range, 43-56 years]). A total of 23 EFS events (10.5%) occurred in the anthracycline group and 21 EFS events (9.6%) occurred in the nonanthracycline group (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.50-1.63; favoring nonanthracyclines). Three-year EFS estimates were 92.7% (95% CI, 89.3%-96.2%) in the anthracycline group and 93.6% (95% CI, 90.4%-96.9%) in the nonanthracycline group and 3-year OS estimates were 97.7% (95% CI, 95.7%-99.7%) in the anthracycline group and 98.2% (95% CI, 96.4%-100%) in the nonanthracycline group. The results were irrespective of hormone receptor and nodal status. A decline in left ventricular ejection fraction of 10% or more from baseline to less than 50% was more common in patients who received anthracyclines than those who did not (17 of 220 [7.7%] vs 7 of 218 [3.2%]; P = .04). Two patients treated with anthracyclines developed acute leukemia. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This follow-up analysis of the TRAIN-2 study shows similar 3-year EFS and OS estimates with or without anthracyclines in patients with stage II and III ERBB2-positive breast cancer. Anthracycline use is associated with increased risk of febrile neutropenia, cardiotoxic effects, and secondary malignant neoplasms. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01996267.

Addition of zoledronic acid to neoadjuvant chemotherapy is not beneficial in patients with HER2-negative stage II/III breast cancer: 5-year survival analysis of the NEOZOTAC trial (BOOG 2010-01).

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant bisphosphonates are associated with improved breast cancer survival in postmenopausal patients. Addition of zoledronic acid (ZA) to neoadjuvant chemotherapy did not improve pathological complete response in the phase III NEOZOTAC trial. Here we report the results of the secondary endpoints, disease-free survival, (DFS) and overall survival (OS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with HER2-negative, stage II/III breast cancer were randomized to receive the standard 6 cycles of neoadjuvant TAC (docetaxel/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide) chemotherapy with or without 4 mg intravenous (IV) ZA administered within 24 h of chemotherapy. This was repeated every 21 days for 6 cycles. Cox regression models were used to evaluate the effect of ZA and covariates on DFS and OS. Regression models were used to examine the association between insulin, glucose, insulin growth factor-1 (IGF-1) levels, and IGF-1 receptor (IGF-1R) expression with survival outcomes. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-six women were eligible for inclusion. After a median follow-up of 6.4 years, OS for all patients was significantly worse for those who received ZA (HR 0.468, 95% CI 0.226-0.967, P = 0.040). DFS was not significantly different between the treatment arms (HR 0.656, 95% CI 0.371-1.160, P = 0.147). In a subgroup analysis of postmenopausal women, no significant difference in DFS or OS was found for those who received ZA compared with the control group (HR 0.464, 95% CI 0.176-1.222, P = 0.120; HR 0.539, 95% CI 0.228-1.273, P = 0.159, respectively). The subgroup analysis of premenopausal patients was not significantly different for DFS and OS ((HR 0.798, 95% CI 0.369-1.725, P = 0.565; HR 0.456, 95% CI 0.156-1.336, P = 0.152, respectively). Baseline IGF-1R expression was not significantly associated with DFS or OS. In a predefined additional study, lower serum levels of insulin were associated with improved DFS (HR 1.025, 95% CI 1.005-1.045, P = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that ZA in combination with neoadjuvant chemotherapy was associated with a worse OS in breast cancer (both pre- and postmenopausal patients). However, in a subgroup analysis of postmenopausal patients, ZA treatment was not associated with DFS or OS. Also, DFS was not significantly different between both groups. IGF-1R expression in tumor tissue before and after neoadjuvant treatment did not predict survival. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01099436 , April 2010.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with or without anthracyclines in the presence of dual HER2 blockade for HER2-positive breast cancer (TRAIN-2): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal chemotherapy backbone for dual HER2 blockade in the neoadjuvant setting for early breast cancer is unknown. We investigated whether the addition of anthracyclines would improve pathological complete response compared with a carboplatin-taxane regimen, when given in combination with the HER2-targeted agents trastuzumab and pertuzumab. METHODS: The TRAIN-2 study is an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial being done in 37 hospitals in the Netherlands. We recruited patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated, histologically confirmed stage II-III HER2-positive breast cancer. Patients were randomly allocated using central randomisation software (1:1 ratio) with minimisation without a random component, stratified by tumour stage, nodal stage, oestrogen receptor status, and age, to receive 5-fluorouracil (500 mg/m2), epirubicin (90 mg/m2), and cyclophosphamide (500 mg/m2) every 3 weeks for three cycles followed by paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8) and carboplatin (area under the concentration-time curve [AUC] 6 mg/mL per min on day 1 or optionally, as per hospital preference, AUC 3 mg/mL per min on days 1 and 8) every 3 weeks for six cycles, or to receive nine cycles of paclitaxel and carboplatin at the same dose and schedule as in the anthracycline group. Patients in both study groups received trastuzumab (6 mg/kg, loading dose 8 mg/kg) and pertuzumab (420 mg, loading dose 840 mg) concurrently with all chemotherapy cycles. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved a pathological complete response in breast and axilla (ypT0/is ypN0) in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was analysed in patients who received at least one treatment cycle according to actual treatment received. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01996267, and follow-up for long-term outcome is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Dec 9, 2013, and Jan 14, 2016, 438 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the two treatment groups (219 patients to each group), of whom 418 were evaluable for the primary endpoint (212 in the anthracycline group and 206 in the non-anthracycline group). The median follow-up for all patients was 19 months (IQR 16-23 months). A pathological complete response was recorded in 141 (67%, 95% CI 60-73) of 212 patients in the anthracycline group and in 140 (68%, 61-74) of 206 in the non-anthracycline group (p=0·95). One patient randomly allocated to the non-anthracycline group did receive anthracyclines and was thus included in the anthracycline group for safety analyses; therefore, for the safety analyses there were 220 patients in the anthracycline group and 218 in the non-anthracycline group. Serious adverse events were reported in 61 (28%) of 220 patients in the anthracycline group and in 49 (22%) of 218 in the non-anthracycline group. The most common adverse events of any cause were grade 3 or worse neutropenia (in 131 [60%] of 220 patients in the anthracycline group vs 118 [54%] of 218 in the non-anthracycline group), grade 3 or worse diarrhoea (26 [12%] vs 37 [18%]), and grade 2 or worse peripheral neuropathy (66 [30%] vs 68 [31%]), with no substantial differences between the groups. Grade 3 or worse febrile neutropenia was more common in the anthracycline group than in the non-anthracycline group (23 [10%] vs three [1%], p<0·0001). Symptomatic left ventricular systolic dysfunction was rare in both groups (two [1%] of 220 vs 0 of 218). One patient in the anthracycline group died because of a pulmonary embolism, which was possibly treatment related. INTERPRETATION: In view of the high proportion of pathological complete responses recorded in both groups and the fact that febrile neutropenia was more frequent in the anthracycline group, omitting anthracyclines from neoadjuvant treatment regimens might be a preferred approach in the presence of dual HER2 blockade in patients with early HER2-positive breast cancer. Long-term follow-up is required to confirm these results. FUNDING: Roche Netherlands.

Intermittent versus continuous first-line treatment for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: the Stop & Go study of the Dutch Breast Cancer Research Group (BOOG).

PURPOSE: We determined if intermittent first-line treatment with paclitaxel plus bevacizumab was not inferior to continuous treatment in patients with HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer. METHODS: Patients were randomized to 2 × 4 cycles or continuous 8 cycles of paclitaxel plus bevacizumab, followed by bevacizumab maintenance treatment until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was overall progression-free survival (PFS). A proportional-hazards regression model was used to estimate the HR. The upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the HR was compared with the non-inferiority margin of 1.34. RESULTS: A total of 420 patients were included with well-balanced characteristics. In the intention-to-treat analysis, median overall PFS was 7.4 months (95% CI 6.4-10.0) for intermittent and 9.7 months (95% CI 8.9-10.3) for continuous treatment, with a stratified HR of 1.17 (95% CI 0.88-1.57). Median OS was 17.5 months (95% CI 15.4-21.7) versus 20.9 months (95% CI 17.8-24.0) for intermittent versus continuous treatment, with a HR of 1.38 (95% CI 1.00-1.91). Safety results and actually delivered treatments revealed longer durations of treatment in the continuous arm, without significant unexpected findings. CONCLUSION: Intermittent first-line treatment cannot be recommended in patients with HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT 2010-021519-18; BOOG 2010-02.

Predicting breast and axillary response after neoadjuvant treatment for breast cancer: The role of histology vs receptor status.

PURPOSE: Neoadjuvant systemic treatment (NST) is increasingly administered in breast cancer patients. This study was conducted to identify predictors for tumor response in the breast and axilla. METHODS: All female patients with nonmetastatic, noninflammatory breast cancer receiving NST between 2003-2013 at the Catharina Cancer Institute in Eindhoven, The Netherlands, were included. RESULTS: The majority of 216 of the 337 patients receiving NST (65%) presented with a cT2 tumor. In 159 patients (47%), the axilla was clinically node positive. A pathologic complete response (pCR) in the breast was achieved in 83 patients (24.6%), and a pCR in the axilla in 65 node-positive patients (40.9%). The triple-negative (OR 4.29, 95% CI 2.15-8.55) and hormone receptor (HR)-negative/HER2-positive tumors (OR 3.73, 95% CI 1.59-8.75) were associated with in-breast pCR. Patients with invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) were less likely to experience in-breast pCR (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01-0.73) than those with invasive ductal cancer. Axillary pCR was found in 65 clinically node-positive patients (41%). Axillary pCR was more likely to occur in HR-positive/HER2-positive (OR 6.24, 95% CI 1.86-20.90) and HR-negative/HER2-positive tumors (OR 6.41, 95% CI 1.95-21.06), compared to HER2-negative disease. In-breast pCR was strongly associated with axillary pCR (OR 10.89, 95% CI 4.20-28.22). CONCLUSION: Response to NST in the breast and axilla is largely determined by receptor status, with high pCR rates occurring in HER2-positive and triple-negative tumors. For axillary pCR, in-breast pCR and HER2-positive disease are the most important predictive factors.

Neutrophil Recovery in Breast Cancer Patients Receiving Docetaxel-Containing Chemotherapy with and without Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor Prophylaxis.

OBJECTIVE: The primary outcome of the current study is, whether there is a protective effect of prior chemotherapy or of prior granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) on the next cycle blood cell counts. METHODS: Hematologic toxicity was evaluated, based on a randomized phase III study in breast cancer patients (n = 167) with >20% risk of febrile neutropenia. The primary endpoint was the nadir blood cell counts for patients treated with G-CSF given during all 6 chemotherapy cycles or limited to the first 2 chemotherapy cycles only. RESULTS: For the present analyses, 47 patients were eligible. In the G-CSF 1-6 arm, the median white blood cell count (WBC) and absolute neutrophil count (ANC) nadir slowly decreased from 10.8 × 109/L in cycle 1 to 7.5 × 109/L in cycle 6 and from 7.1 × 109/L to 5.5 × 109/L, respectively. The median WBC nadir in the G-CSF 1-2 arm decreased from 1.2 × 109/L in cycle 3 to 0.9 × 109/L in cycle 6 and the ANC nadir showed a grade 4 neutropenia of 0.1 × 109/L in cycles 3-6. All patients had ANC recovery to normal levels (≥1.5 × 109/L) without delay on day 1 of the next cycle. CONCLUSION: We conclude that there is no protective effect of prior G-CSF or prior chemotherapy use on nadir blood cell counts in subsequent cycles.

Ultrasound is at least as good as magnetic resonance imaging in predicting tumour size post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of clinical imaging of the primary breast tumour post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) related to the post-neoadjuvant histological tumour size (gold standard) and whether this varies with breast cancer subtype. In this study, results of both magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound (US) were reported. METHODS: Patients with invasive breast cancer were enrolled in the INTENS study between 2006 and 2009. We included 182 patients, of whom data were available for post-NAC MRI (n=155), US (n=123), and histopathological tumour size. RESULTS: MRI estimated residual tumour size with <10-mm discordance in 54% of patients, overestimated size in 28% and underestimated size in 18% of patients. With US, this was 63%, 20% and 17%, respectively. The negative predictive value in hormone receptor-positive tumours for both MRI and US was low, 26% and 33%, respectively. The median deviation in clinical tumour size as percentage of pathological tumour was 63% (P25=26, P75=100) and 49% (P25=22, P75=100) for MRI and US, respectively (P=0.06). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, US was at least as good as breast MRI in providing information on residual tumour size post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy. However, both modalities suffered from a substantial percentage of over- and underestimation of tumour size and in addition both showed a low negative predictive value of pathologic complete remission (Gov nr: NCT00314977).

Bioequivalence of Liposome-Entrapped Paclitaxel Easy-To-Use (LEP-ETU) formulation and paclitaxel in polyethoxylated castor oil: a randomized, two-period crossover study in patients with advanced cancer.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical studies comparing paclitaxel formulated with polyethoxylated castor oil with the sonicated formulation of liposome-entrapped paclitaxel (LEP) have demonstrated that LEP was associated with reduced toxicity while maintaining similar efficacy. Preliminary studies on the pharmacokinetics in patients support earlier preclinical data, which suggested that the LEP Easy-to-Use (LEP-ETU) formulation and paclitaxel formulated with castor oil may have comparable pharmacokinetic properties. OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were: (1) to determine bioequivalence of paclitaxel pharmaceutically formulated as LEP-ETU (test) and paclitaxel formulated with castor oil (reference); and (2) to assess the tolerability of LEP-ETU following intravenous administration. METHODS: Patients with advanced cancer were studied in a randomized, 2-period crossover bioequivalence study. Patients received paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) administered as an intravenous infusion over 180 minutes, either as a single-treatment cycle of the test formulation followed by a single-treatment cycle of the reference formulation, or vice versa. RESULTS: Thirty-two of 58 patients were evaluable and were included in the analysis for bioequivalence. Mean total paclitaxel Cmax values for the test and reference formulations were 4955.0 and 5108.8 ng/mL, respectively. Corresponding AUC0-∞ values were 15,853.8 and 18,550.8 ng·h/mL, respectively. Treatment ratios of the geometric means were 97% (90% CI, 91%-103%) for Cmax and 84% (90% CI, 80%-90%) for AUC0-∞. These results met the required 80% to 125% bioequivalence criteria. The most frequently reported adverse events after LEP-ETU administration were fatigue, alopecia, and myalgia. CONCLUSION: At the studied dose regimen, LEP-ETU showed bioequivalence with paclitaxel formulated with polyethoxylated castor oil.

Cost effectiveness of primary pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in patients with breast cancer at risk of febrile neutropenia.

PURPOSE: Guidelines advise primary granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) prophylaxis during chemotherapy if risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) is more than 20%, but this comes with considerable costs. We investigated the incremental costs and effects between two treatment strategies of primary pegfilgrastim prophylaxis. METHODS: Our economic evaluation used a health care perspective and was based on a randomized study in patients with breast cancer with increased risk of FN, comparing primary G-CSF prophylaxis throughout all chemotherapy cycles (G-CSF 1-6 cycles) with prophylaxis during the first two cycles only (G-CSF 1-2 cycles). Primary outcome was cost effectiveness expressed as costs per patient with episodes of FN prevented. RESULTS: The incidence of FN increased from 10% in the G-CSF 1 to 6 cycles study arm (eight of 84 patients) to 36% in the G-CSF 1 to 2 cycles study arm (30 of 83 patients), whereas the mean total costs decreased from € 20,658 (95% CI, € 20,049 to € 21,247) to € 17,168 (95% CI € 16,239 to € 18,029) per patient, respectively. Chemotherapy and G-CSF determined 80% of the total costs. As expected, FN-related costs were higher in the G-CSF 1 to 2 cycles arm. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio for the G-CSF 1 to 6 cycles arm compared with the G-CSF 1 to 2 cycles arm was € 13,112 per patient with episodes of FN prevented. CONCLUSION: We conclude that G-CSF prophylaxis throughout all chemotherapy cycles is more effective, but more costly, compared with prophylaxis limited to the first two cycles. Whether G-CSF prophylaxis throughout all chemotherapy cycles is considered cost effective depends on the willingness to pay per patient with episodes of FN prevented.

Primary granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis during the first two cycles only or throughout all chemotherapy cycles in patients with breast cancer at risk for febrile neutropenia.

PURPOSE: Early breast cancer is commonly treated with anthracyclines and taxanes. However, combining these drugs increases the risk of myelotoxicity and may require granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) support. The highest incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) and largest benefit of G-CSF during the first cycles of chemotherapy lead to questions about the effectiveness of continued use of G-CSF throughout later cycles of chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a multicenter study, patients with breast cancer who were considered fit enough to receive 3-weekly polychemotherapy, but also had > 20% risk for FN, were randomly assigned to primary G-CSF prophylaxis during the first two chemotherapy cycles only (experimental arm) or to primary G-CSF prophylaxis throughout all chemotherapy cycles (standard arm). The noninferiority hypothesis was that the incidence of FN would be maximally 7.5% higher in the experimental compared with the standard arm. RESULTS: After inclusion of 167 eligible patients, the independent data monitoring committee advised premature study closure. Of 84 patients randomly assigned to G-CSF throughout all chemotherapy cycles, eight (10%) experienced an episode of FN. In contrast, of 83 patients randomly assigned to G-CSF during the first two cycles only, 30 (36%) had an FN episode (95% CI, 0.13 to 0.54), with a peak incidence of 24% in the third cycle (ie, first cycle without G-CSF prophylaxis). CONCLUSION: In patients with early breast cancer at high risk for FN, continued use of primary G-CSF prophylaxis during all chemotherapy cycles is of clinical relevance and thus cannot be abandoned.

Chemotherapy and cognitive complaints in women with breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Results of existing studies are inconclusive concerning the relationship between chemotherapy and subjective cognitive functioning (SCF). The aim of this study was to evaluate SCF of breast cancer (BC) patients and to find predictors of impaired SCF. Both satisfaction and frequency of complaints about SCF were measured. METHODS: BC patients who were about to receive chemotherapy (N = 74) and patients with a benign breast disease (BBD) (N = 63) participated. Before chemotherapy started (Time 1) and 3 months after ending chemotherapy (and at comparable moments for the BBD group) (Time 2), women completed validated questionnaires concerning the frequency of complaints and satisfaction with SCF, fatigue, perceived stress, anxiety, and depressive symptoms. RESULTS: No differences were found between the BBD and BC patients concerning the frequency of complaints about SCF across time. Satisfaction with SCF decreased across time in BC patients but remained stable across time in BBD patients (p < 0.001; p = 0.003 after controlling for state anxiety and perceived stress). Correlation coefficients between the satisfaction and the frequency of complaints about SCF ranged between -0.26 and -0.49. Depressive symptoms and satisfaction with SCF (Time 1) predicted the frequency of complaints about SCF (Time 2). Diagnosis, frequency of complaints about SCF, and state anxiety (Time 1) predicted satisfaction with SCF (Time 2). CONCLUSIONS: BC patients do not differ in the frequency of complaints about SCF compared with BBD patients, but their satisfaction with SCF decreased after treatment. Psychological factors predicted the frequency of complaints about SCF. Psychological factors and diagnosis predicted satisfaction with SCF.