Five-year outcome for women randomised in a phase III trial comparing doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide with doxorubicin and docetaxel as primary medical therapy in early breast cancer: an Anglo-Celtic Cooperative Oncology Group study.

To compare the long-term outcome of women with primary or locally advanced breast cancer randomised to receive either doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) or doxorubicin and docetaxel (AD) as primary chemotherapy. Eligible patients with histologic-proven breast cancer with primary tumours > or = 3 cm, inflammatory or locally advanced disease, and no evidence of distant metastases, were randomised to receive a maximum of 6 cycles of either doxorubicin (60 mg/m(2)) plus cyclophosphamide (600 mg/m(2)) i/v or doxorubicin (50 mg/m(2)) plus docetaxel (75 mg/m(2)) i/v every 3 weeks, followed by surgery on completion of chemotherapy. Clinical and pathologic responses have previously been reported. Time to relapse, site of relapse, and all-cause mortality were recorded. This updated analysis compares long-term disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS) using stratified log rank methods. A total of 363 patients were randomised to AC (n = 181) or AD (n = 182). A complete pathologic response was observed in 16% for AC and 12% for AD (P = 0.43). The number of patients with positive axillary nodes at surgery with AC was 61% and AD 66% (P = 0.36). At a median follow-up of 99 months there is no significant difference between the two groups for DFS (P = 0.20) and OS (P = 0.24). Deaths were due to metastatic breast cancer in 96% of patients. Our data do not support a clinical benefit for simultaneous administration of AD compared with AC. However, the data do not exclude a smaller benefit than the study was powered to detect and are consistent with an increase in both disease-free and overall survival of about 5% for AD compared with AC. Outcome is consistent with the pathologic complete response following surgery.

Epirubicin and cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil as adjuvant therapy for early breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The National Epirubicin Adjuvant Trial (NEAT) and the BR9601 trial examined the efficacy of anthracyclines in the adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer. METHODS: In NEAT, we compared four cycles of epirubicin followed by four cycles of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) with six cycles of CMF alone. In the BR9601 trial, we compared four cycles of epirubicin followed by four cycles of CMF, with eight cycles of CMF alone every 3 weeks. The primary end points were relapse-free and overall survival. The secondary end points were adverse effects, dose intensity, and quality of life. RESULTS: The two trials included 2391 women with early breast cancer; the median follow-up was 48 months. Relapse-free and overall survival rates were significantly higher in the epirubicin-CMF groups than in the CMF-alone groups (2-year relapse-free survival, 91% vs. 85%; 5-year relapse-free survival, 76% vs. 69%; 2-year overall survival, 95% vs. 92%; 5-year overall survival, 82% vs. 75%; P<0.001 by the log-rank test for all comparisons). Hazard ratios for relapse (or death without relapse) (0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58 to 0.82; P<0.001) and death from any cause (0.67; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.82; P<0.001) favored epirubicin plus CMF over CMF alone. Independent prognostic factors were nodal status, tumor grade, tumor size, and estrogen-receptor status (P<0.001 for all four factors) and the presence or absence of vascular or lymphatic invasion (P=0.01). These factors did not significantly interact with the effect of epirubicin plus CMF. The overall incidence of adverse effects was significantly higher with epirubicin plus CMF than with CMF alone but did not significantly affect the delivered-dose intensity or the quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Epirubicin plus CMF is superior to CMF alone as adjuvant treatment for early breast cancer. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00003577 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Agonists During Chemotherapy for Preservation of Ovarian Function and Fertility in Premenopausal Patients With Early Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Individual Patient-Level Data.

Purpose The role of temporary ovarian suppression with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRHa) during chemotherapy as a strategy to preserve ovarian function and fertility in premenopausal women remains controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis using individual patient-level data was conducted to better assess the efficacy and safety of this strategy in patients with early breast cancer. Methods The trials in which premenopausal women with early breast cancer were randomly assigned to receive (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy alone or with concurrent GnRHa were eligible for inclusion. Primary end points were premature ovarian insufficiency (POI) rate and post-treatment pregnancy rate. Disease-free survival and overall survival were secondary end points. Because each study represents a cluster, statistical analyses were performed using a random effects model. Results A total of 873 patients from five trials were included. POI rate was 14.1% in the GnRHa group and 30.9% in the control group (adjusted odds ratio, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.57; P < .001). A total of 37 (10.3%) patients had at least one post-treatment pregnancy in the GnRHa group and 20 (5.5%) in the control group (incidence rate ratio, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.06 to 3.15; P = .030). No significant differences in disease-free survival (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.42; P = .999) and overall survival (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.42 to 1.06; P = .083) were observed between groups. Conclusion Our findings provide evidence for the efficacy and safety of temporary ovarian suppression with GnRHa during chemotherapy as an available option to reduce the likelihood of chemotherapy-induced POI and potentially improve future fertility in premenopausal patients with early breast cancer.

Phase III randomized trial of doxorubicin and docetaxel versus doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide as primary medical therapy in women with breast cancer: an anglo-celtic cooperative oncology group study.

PURPOSE To compare the clinical and pathologic response rates of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) with doxorubicin and docetaxel (AD) as primary chemotherapy in women with primary or locally advanced breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Eligible patients with histologically proven breast cancer with primary tumors >/= 3 cm, inflammatory or locally advanced disease, and no evidence of metastases were randomly assigned to receive a maximum of six cycles of either doxorubicin (60 mg/m(2)) plus cyclophosphamide (600 mg/m(2)) administered intravenously (IV) every 3 weeks or doxorubicin (60 mg/m(2)) plus docetaxel (75 mg/m(2)) IV every 3 weeks, followed by surgery on completion of chemotherapy. Results A total of 363 patients were randomly assigned to AC (n = 180) or AD (n = 183). A complete clinical response was observed in 17% and 20% of patients treated with AC and AD, respectively (P = .42). Overall (complete and partial) clinical response rates for AC and AD were 61% and 70%, respectively (P = .06). There was no significant difference in either the pathologic complete response rates in the breast with AC (24%) and AD (21%; P = .61) or in the number of patients with positive axillary nodes at surgery with AC (61%) and AD (66%; P = .28). At a median follow-up of 32 months, there is no significant difference between the two groups for the number of relapses. CONCLUSION In contrast to the positive results reported for sequential docetaxel after AC as primary chemotherapy of breast cancer, our data do not suggest a benefit for simultaneous AD over AC.

The in vitro anti-tumour activity of zoledronic acid and docetaxel at clinically achievable concentrations in prostate cancer.

Bisphosphonates and chemotherapy have increasingly gained favour in the treatment of metastatic hormone resistant prostate cancer. We investigated whether zoledronic acid, at a concentration found at the bone, would enhance the anti-tumour activity of docetaxel in the hormone resistant prostate cancer cell line PC-3. Cells were exposed to zoledronic acid (1 mM) in combination or in sequence with docetaxel (3 nM). Cell viability, apoptosis and markers for inhibition of the mevalonate pathway were analyzed 48 or 72 hours after drug treatment. Reduction in cell viability and increased apoptosis levels were most pronounced with single agent zoledronic acid. Western blot analysis showed an overall reduction in the proliferation marker Mini chromosome maintenance protein 2 (MCM2) and reduction in caspase-3 precursor for all drug treatments and a marked reduction in Rho A levels with single agent zoledronic acid and zoledronic acid-docetaxel sequence. This study highlights the potency of zoledronic acid, when used at concentrations similar to those found at the bone, in reducing cell viability and causing apoptosis. Clinically, these findings suggest that in patients with bone metastases due to hormone resistance prostate cancer, who are not fit enough for systemic chemotherapy, single agent zoledronic acid may have a direct effect on viability of prostate cancer epithelial cells.

Sequential treatment with exemestane and non-steroidal aromatase inhibitors in advanced breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The steroidal aromatase inactivator exemestane has demonstrated activity after prior failure of non-steroidal aromatase inhibitors (including third-generation inhibitors letrozole and anastrozole) in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer. If exemestane is used as first anti-aromatase agent, however, it is unclear whether patients can still benefit from letrozole or anastrozole after progression. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Postmenopausal patients with advanced, hormone receptor-positive or -unknown breast cancer were eligible for this study. Patients with no prior exposure to anti-aromatase drugs received exemestane, 25 mg daily, as first anti-aromatase agent. At the time of progression, patients were crossed-over to anastrozole or letrozole if further endocrine therapy was considered appropriate. Patients with prior exposure to anti-aromatase agents were also included in the study, and were given anastrozole or letrozole if they had previously received exemestane, or exemestane if they had previously received anastrozole or letrozole. The primary endpoint of the study was the clinical benefit rate (complete response + partial response + stabilization of disease for >or=24 weeks). RESULTS: Forty patients received exemestane 25 mg daily as first anti-aromatase agent, with a CB rate of 67.5% (95% CI 52.9-82.0%) and a median time to progression (TTP) of 9.6 months. In 18 patients, letrozole (n = 17) or anastrozole (n = 1) were used after failure of exemestane: the CB rate was 55.6% (95% CI 32.6-78.5%) with a median TTP of 9.3 months. In 23 patients, exemestane was used after failure of letrozole or anastrozole: the CB rate was 43.5% (95% CI 23.2-63.7%) with a median TTP of 5.1 months. CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirms that exemestane is active after prior failure of letrozole or anastrozole. We have also shown that patients can receive exemestane as their first anti-aromatase agent and still benefit from letrozole or anastrozole after progression. This suggests that the partial non-cross resistance between steroidal and non-steroidal anti-aromatase agents is independent of the sequence employed.

Maintenance hormone therapy with letrozole after first-line chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Maintenance hormone therapy after first-line chemotherapy is routinely used by many clinicians in advanced breast cancer patients with potentially hormone-sensitive tumors, although there are insufficient evidences in the literature to support this practice. We investigated the effects of the third-generation aromatase inhibitor letrozole as a maintenance therapy in postmenopausal patients who had responded or had stable disease with first-line chemotherapy. METHODS: Fifty-eight patients (median age 62 years, range 31-80) were recruited and received letrozole, 2.5 mg/day starting within 8 weeks since the last cycle of chemotherapy. Estrogen and/or progesterone receptor status was positive in 81% of the patients, unknown in 19%; 57% of the patients had visceral disease. First-line chemotherapy included anthracyclines and/or taxanes in 74% of cases. RESULTS: The median time to progression (TTP) from starting letrozole was 18.5 months. A shorter TTP was found in patients with abnormal CA 15-3 levels at the start of maintenance letrozole (median TTP, 9.9 months: p = 0.01), or with levels increasing >25% from baseline during the first 6 months of letrozole therapy (median TTP, 8.2 months: p < 0.0001). Response status improved during letrozole in 15.5% of patients who had obtained less than a complete response to chemotherapy. Maintenance treatment was well tolerated and had no significant impact on quality of life scores. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence in support of the common clinical practice of maintenance hormone therapy after chemotherapy in suitably selected patients with advanced breast cancer.

Conventional adjuvant chemotherapy versus single-cycle, autograft-supported, high-dose, late-intensification chemotherapy in high-risk breast cancer patients: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer patients with four or more positive axillary lymph nodes who are treated with conventional adjuvant therapy have a poor prognosis. In uncontrolled studies, high-dose chemotherapy produced much better results than conventional therapy. We compared the benefits of a single cycle of high-dose chemotherapy and the benefits of conventional chemotherapy in patients with high-risk breast cancer in a prospective, unblinded, randomized trial. METHODS: Between February 23, 1995, and June 29, 1999, 605 patients with breast cancer who had four or more positive lymph nodes were randomly assigned to treatment (307 to high-dose therapy and 298 to conventional therapy). The conventional chemotherapy regimen was four cycles of doxorubicin (75 mg/m2) followed by eight cycles of CMF (cyclophosphamide [600 mg/m2], methotrexate [50 mg/m2], and 5-fluorouracil [600 mg/m2]), all given intravenously on day 1 of a 21-day cycle. The high-dose regimen was four cycles of doxorubicin (75 mg/m2), followed by a single cycle of intermediate-dose cyclophosphamide (4000 mg/m2) supported by filgrastim (300 microg/day) for up to 10 days followed by high-dose cyclophosphamide (6000 mg/m2) and thiotepa (800 mg/m2). Peripheral blood progenitor cells were harvested by leukapheresis after treatment with cyclophosphamide and filgrastim and then re-infused after the high-dose cycle. Log-rank tests were used to compare survival rates. All statistical analyses were two-sided. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 6 years, no statistically significant differences were detected between the arms in 5-year relapse-free survival (high-dose arm = 57%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 51% to 63%; conventional-dose arm = 54%, 95% CI = 48% to 61% (P =.73) or in 5-year overall survival (high-dose arm = 62%, 95% CI = 56% to 68%; conventional-dose arm = 64%, 95% CI = 57% to 70%) (P =.38). CONCLUSION: Autograft-supported, high-dose therapy is not superior to conventional chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer who have multiple involved lymph nodes. This conclusion should be viewed in the context of improving the success of conventional chemotherapy.