Talazoparib versus chemotherapy in patients with germline BRCA1/2-mutated HER2-negative advanced breast cancer: final overall survival results from the EMBRACA trial.

BACKGROUND: In EMBRACA, talazoparib prolonged progression-free survival versus chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.542 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.413-0.711]; P < 0.0001) and improved patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in germline BRCA1/2 (gBRCA1/2)-mutated advanced breast cancer (ABC). We report final overall survival (OS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This randomized phase III trial enrolled patients with gBRCA1/2-mutated HER2-negative ABC. Patients received talazoparib or physician's choice of chemotherapy. OS was analyzed using stratified HR and log-rank test and prespecified rank-preserving structural failure time model to account for subsequent treatments. RESULTS: A total of 431 patients were entered in a randomized study (287 talazoparib/144 chemotherapy) with 412 patients treated (286 talazoparib/126 chemotherapy). By 30 September 2019, 216 deaths (75.3%) occurred for talazoparib and 108 (75.0%) chemotherapy; median follow-up was 44.9 and 36.8 months, respectively. HR for OS with talazoparib versus chemotherapy was 0.848 (95% CI 0.670-1.073; P = 0.17); median (95% CI) 19.3 months (16.6-22.5 months) versus 19.5 months (17.4-22.4 months). Kaplan-Meier survival percentages (95% CI) for talazoparib versus chemotherapy: month 12, 71% (66% to 76%)/74% (66% to 81%); month 24, 42% (36% to 47%)/38% (30% to 47%); month 36, 27% (22% to 33%)/21% (14% to 29%). Most patients received subsequent treatments: for talazoparib and chemotherapy, 46.3%/41.7% received platinum and 4.5%/32.6% received a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, respectively. Adjusting for subsequent PARP and/or platinum use, HR for OS was 0.756 (95% bootstrap CI 0.503-1.029). Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 69.6% (talazoparib) and 64.3% (chemotherapy) patients, consistent with previous reports. Extended follow-up showed significant overall improvement and delay in time to definitive clinically meaningful deterioration in global health status/quality of life and breast symptoms favoring talazoparib versus chemotherapy (P < 0.01 for all), consistent with initial analyses. CONCLUSIONS: In gBRCA1/2-mutated HER2-negative ABC, talazoparib did not significantly improve OS over chemotherapy; subsequent treatments may have impacted analysis. Safety was consistent with previous observations. PRO continued to favor talazoparib.

Quality of life with talazoparib versus physician's choice of chemotherapy in patients with advanced breast cancer and germline BRCA1/2 mutation: patient-reported outcomes from the EMBRACA phase III trial.

Background: In the EMBRACA phase III trial, talazoparib (1 mg daily, orally) demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in PFS versus physician's choice of chemotherapy (PCT; capecitabine, eribulin, gemcitabine, or vinorelbine) in patients with HER2-negative advanced breast cancer carrying a germline BRCA1/2 mutation; we evaluated patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Patients and methods: Patients were randomized 2 : 1 to receive talazoparib or PCT. PROs were assessed at day 1 (baseline), the start of each treatment cycle (every 3 weeks), and at the end of treatment, using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-30) and its breast cancer module, QLQ-BR23. Prespecified exploratory analyses included a longitudinal mixed-effect model comparing treatment arms and a time to definitive clinically meaningful deterioration (TTD) analysis carried out in the global health status/quality of life (GHS/QoL), and all functional and symptom scales from the EORTC QLQ-C30 and -BR23 questionnaires. Between-arm TTD comparisons were made using a stratified log-rank test and a Cox proportional hazards model. Results: Baseline scores were similar between arms. Statistically significant estimated overall improvement from baseline in GHS/QoL was seen for talazoparib compared with statistically significant deterioration for PCT {3.0 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2, 4.8] versus -5.4 [95% CI -8.8, -2.0]; between arms, P < 0.0001}. A statistically significant greater delay was observed in TTD in GHS/QoL, favoring talazoparib over PCT [hazard ratio, 0.38 (95% CI 0.26, 0.55; median, 24.3 versus 6.3 months, respectively; P < 0.0001)]. A statistically significant overall change and a statistically significant delay in TTD, all favoring talazoparib, were also observed in multiple functions and symptoms. Conclusion: Patients who received talazoparib had significant overall improvements and significant delay in TTD in multiple cancer-related and breast cancer-specific symptoms, functions, and GHS/QoL. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01945775.

Higher rate of severe toxicities in obese patients receiving dose-dense (dd) chemotherapy according to unadjusted body surface area: results of the prospectively randomized GAIN study.

BACKGROUND: In routine clinical practice, chemotherapy doses are frequently capped at a body surface area (BSA) of 2.0 m2 or adjusted to an ideal weight for obese patients due to safety reasons. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between August 2004 and July 2008, a total of 3023 patients were enrolled in the GAIN study, a randomized phase III adjuvant trial, comparing two types of dose-dense (dd) regimen [epirubicin, docetaxel and cyclophosphamide (iddETC) versus epirubicin and cyclophosphamide (EC) followed by docetaxel (T) plus capecitabine (X)]. We retrospectively evaluated a total of 555 patients with a BMI of ≥30 for safety and outcome. RESULTS: Eighteen percent of all patients were obese: 31% of those received chemotherapy according to an unadjusted BSA. For the remaining patients, BSA was adjusted to ideal weight or was capped at 2.0 m2. A total of 15% of obese patients receiving full (unadjusted) dose of chemotherapy versus 6% of obese patients with an adjusted BSA experienced febrile neutropenia (P = 0.003) and 9% versus 3% high-grade thrombopenia (P = 0.002). Overall, 17% versus 10% had a thromboembolic event (P = 0.017), which was high grade in 13% versus 6%, respectively (P = 0.019), and 3% versus 0.3% high-grade hot flushes (P = 0.013). Dizziness (5% versus 11%; P = 0.016), diarrhea (19% versus 27%; P = 0.033) and an increase in serum creatinine (7% versus 14%; P = 0.019) were higher in the adjusted group. However, no differences in disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were observed between non-obese patients, obese patients receiving full-dose chemotherapy or according to an adjusted BSA [5-year DFS 81% (confidence interval 79% to 83%) versus 82% (75% to 87%) versus 81% (76% to 84%); P = 0.761; 5-year OS 90% (88% to 91%) versus 86% (80% to 91%) versus 88% (84% to 91%); P = 0.143]. CONCLUSION: Obese patients receiving dd chemotherapy according to their real BSA have a higher risk of developing severe toxicities without influencing survival. Therefore, a dose adjustment of intense dd chemotherapy should be carried out to avoid life-threatening complications.

Long-term outcomes after adjuvant treatment of sequential versus combination docetaxel with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide in node-positive breast cancer: BCIRG-005 randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal regimen for adjuvant breast cancer chemotherapy is undefined. We compared sequential to concurrent combination of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide with docetaxel chemotherapy in women with node-positive non-metastatic breast cancer. We report the final, 10-year analysis of disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), and long-term safety. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 3298 women with HER2 nonamplified breast cancer were randomized to doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide every 3 weeks for four cycles followed by docetaxel (AC → T) every 3 weeks for four cycles or docetaxel, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (TAC) every 3 weeks for six cycles. The patients received standard radiotherapy and endocrine therapy and were followed up for 10 years with annual clinical evaluation and mammography. RESULTS: The 10-year DFS rates were 66.5% in the AC → T arm and 66.3% in the TAC arm (P = 0.749). OS was 79.9% in the AC → T arm and 78.9% in the TAC arm (P = 0.506). TAC was associated with higher rates of febrile neutropenia, although G-CSF primary prophylaxis greatly reduced this risk. AC → T was associated with a higher rate of myalgia, hand-foot syndrome, fluid retention, and sensory neuropathy. CONCLUSION: This 10-year analysis of the BCIRG-005 trial confirmed that the efficacy of TAC was not superior to AC → T in women with node-positive early breast cancer. The toxicity profiles differ between arms and were consistent with previous reports. The TAC regimen with G-CSF support provides shorter adjuvant treatment duration with less toxicity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT00312208.

Statistical controversies in clinical research: statistical significance-too much of a good thing .

The use and interpretation of P values is a matter of debate in applied research. We argue that P values are useful as a pragmatic guide to interpret the results of a clinical trial, not as a strict binary boundary that separates real treatment effects from lack thereof. We illustrate our point using the result of BOLERO-1, a randomized, double-blind trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of adding everolimus to trastuzumab and paclitaxel as first-line therapy for HER2+ advanced breast cancer. In this trial, the benefit of everolimus was seen only in the predefined subset of patients with hormone receptor-negative breast cancer at baseline (progression-free survival hazard ratio = 0.66, P = 0.0049). A strict interpretation of this finding, based on complex 'alpha splitting' rules to assess statistical significance, led to the conclusion that the benefit of everolimus was not statistically significant either overall or in the subset. We contend that this interpretation does not do justice to the data, and we argue that the benefit of everolimus in hormone receptor-negative breast cancer is both statistically compelling and clinically relevant.

Zoledronic acid combined with adjuvant endocrine therapy of tamoxifen versus anastrozol plus ovarian function suppression in premenopausal early breast cancer: final analysis of the Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group Trial 12.

BACKGROUND: Zoledronic acid (ZOL) plus adjuvant endocrine therapy significantly improved disease-free survival (DFS) at 48- and 62-month follow-up in the ABCSG-12 trial. We present efficacy results of a final additional analysis after 94.4 months. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were premenopausal women who had undergone primary surgery for stage I/II estrogen-receptor-positive and/or progesterone-receptor-positive breast cancer with <10 positive lymph nodes, and were scheduled for standard goserelin therapy. All 1803 patients received goserelin (3.6 mg every 28 days) and were randomized to tamoxifen (20 mg/days) or anastrozole (1 mg/days), both with or without ZOL (4 mg every 6 months) for 3 years. The primary end point was DFS; recurrence-free survival and overall survival (OS) were secondary end points. RESULTS: After 94.4-month median follow-up (range, 0-114 months), relative risks of disease progression [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.77; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60-0.99; P = 0.042] and of death (HR = 0.66; 95% CI 0.43-1.02; P = 0.064) are still reduced by ZOL although no longer significant at the predefined significance level. Overall, 251 DFS events and 86 deaths were reported. Absolute risk reductions with ZOL were 3.4% for DFS and 2.2% for OS. There was no DFS difference between tamoxifen alone versus anastrozole alone, but there was a pronounced higher risk of death for anastrozole-treated patients (HR = 1.63; 95% CI 1.05-1.45; P = 0.030). Treatments were generally well tolerated, with no reports of renal failure or osteonecrosis of the jaw. CONCLUSION: These final results from ABCSG 12 suggest that twice-yearly ZOL enhances the efficacy of adjuvant endocrine treatment, and this benefit is maintained long-term. CLINICALTRIALSGOV: NCT00295646 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=00295646).

Ki67 levels as predictive and prognostic parameters in pretherapeutic breast cancer core biopsies: a translational investigation in the neoadjuvant GeparTrio trial.

BACKGROUND: The proliferation marker Ki67 has been suggested as a promising cancer biomarker. As Ki67 needs an exact quantification, this marker is a prototype of a new generation of tissue-based biomarkers. In this study, we have systematically evaluated different cut points for Ki67 using three different clinical end points in a large neoadjuvant study cohort. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We have evaluated pretherapeutic Ki67 levels by immunohistochemistry in 1166 breast cancer core biopsies from the neoadjuvant GeparTrio trial. We used the standardized cutoff-finder algorithm for three end points [response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (pCR), disease-free (DFS) and overall-survival (OS)]. The analyses were stratified for hormone receptor (HR) and HER2 status by molecular subtype radar diagrams (MSRDs). RESULTS: A wide range of Ki67 cut points between 3%-94% (for pCR), 6%-46% (for DFS) and 4%-58% (for OS) were significant. The three groups of Ki67 ≤ 15% versus 15.1%-35% versus >35% had pCR-rates of 4.2%, 12.8%, and 29.0% (P < 0.0005), this effect was also present in six of eight molecular subtypes. In MSRD, Ki67 was significantly linked to prognosis in uni- and multivariate analysis in the complete cohort and in HR-positive, but not triple-negative tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Ki67 is a significant predictive and prognostic marker over a wide range of cut points suggesting that data-derived cut point optimization might not be possible. Ki67 could be used as a continuous marker; in addition, the scientific community could define standardized cut points for Ki67. Our analysis explains the variability observed for Ki67 cut points in previous studies; however, this should not be seen as weakness, but as strength of this marker. MSRDs are an easy new approach for visualization of biomarker effects on outcome across molecular subtypes in breast cancer. The experience with Ki67 could provide important information regarding the development and implementation of other quantitative biomarkers.

The 21-gene recurrence score assay impacts adjuvant therapy recommendations for ER-positive, node-negative and node-positive early breast cancer resulting in a risk-adapted change in chemotherapy use.

BACKGROUND: We carried out a prospective clinical study to evaluate the impact of the Recurrence Score (RS) on treatment decisions in early breast cancer (EBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 379 eligible women with estrogen receptor positive (ER+), HER2-negative EBC and 0-3 positive lymph nodes were enrolled. Treatment recommendations, patients' decisional conflict, physicians' confidence before and after knowledge of the RS and actual treatment data were recorded. RESULTS: Of the 366 assessable patients 244 were node negative (N0) and 122 node positive (N+). Treatment recommendations changed in 33% of all patients (N0 30%, N+ 39%). In 38% of all patients (N0 39%, N+ 37%) with an initial recommendation for chemoendocrine therapy, the post-RS recommendation changed to endocrine therapy, in 25% (N0 22%, N+ 39%) with an initial recommendation for endocrine therapy only to combined chemoendocrine therapy, respectively. A patients' decisional conflict score improved by 6% (P = 0.028) and physicians' confidence increased in 45% (P < 0.001) of all cases. Overall, 33% (N0 29%, N+ 38%) of fewer patients actually received chemotherapy as compared with patients recommended chemotherapy pre-test. Using the test was cost-saving versus current clinical practice. CONCLUSION: RS-guided chemotherapy decision-making resulted in a substantial modification of adjuvant chemotherapy usage in node-negative and node-positive ER+ EBC.

Using the 21-gene assay to guide adjuvant chemotherapy decision-making in early-stage breast cancer: a cost-effectiveness evaluation in the German setting.

OBJECTIVE: The 21-gene assay (Oncotype DX Breast Cancer Test (Genomic Health Inc., Redwood City, CA)) is a well validated test that predicts the likelihood of adjuvant chemotherapy benefit and the 10-year risk of distant recurrence in patients with ER+, HER2- early-stage breast cancer. The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of using the assay to inform adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in Germany. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to make long-term projections of distant recurrence, survival, quality-adjusted life expectancy, and direct costs for patients with ER+, HER2-, node-negative, or up to 3 node-positive early-stage breast cancer. Scenarios using conventional diagnostic procedures or the 21-gene assay to inform treatment recommendations for adjuvant chemotherapy were modeled based on a prospective, multi-center trial in 366 patients. Transition probabilities and risk adjustment were based on published landmark trials. Costs (2011 Euros (€)) were estimated from a sick fund perspective based on resource use in patients receiving chemotherapy. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 3% annually. RESULTS: The 21-gene assay was projected to increase mean life expectancy by 0.06 years and quality-adjusted life expectancy by 0.06 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared with current clinical practice over a 30-year time horizon. Clinical benefits were driven by optimized allocation of adjuvant chemotherapy. Costs from a healthcare payer perspective were lower with the 21-gene assay by ∼€561 vs standard of care. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that there was an 87% probability that the 21-gene assay would be dominant (cost and life saving) to standard of care. LIMITATIONS: Country-specific data on the risk of distant recurrence and quality-of-life were not available. CONCLUSIONS: Guiding decision-making on adjuvant chemotherapy using the 21-gene assay was projected to improve survival, quality-adjusted life expectancy, and be cost saving vs the current standard of care women with ER+, HER2- early-stage breast cancer.

Locoregional treatments for triple-negative breast cancer.

The absence of drug-targetable receptors in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) makes the use of targeted systemic therapy inappropriate for this breast cancer subgroup. Although patients with TNBC show sensitivity to some chemotherapy regimens, in early-stage disease greater emphasis is placed on locoregional treatments, based on surgery and radiation therapy (RT). Ongoing improvements in both screening and surgical techniques have reduced the need for radical surgical intervention in all breast cancers, and breast-conserving surgery (BCS) followed by RT is now increasingly common for all tumour types. However, while evidence has clearly established the importance of post-surgical RT for favourable long-term outcomes in breast cancer, it is less well-established as to where and under which conditions more radical surgeries than BCS, such as modified radical mastectomy (MRM), may be indicated for TNBC. A high proportion of TNBC tumours are BRCA1-mutated and therefore patients with this type of tumour are at a potentially elevated risk of ipsilateral or contralateral recurrence. In addition, while some studies indicate that post-BCS locoregional TNBC relapse rates generally appear similar to other tumour types, some evidence suggests that distant relapse rates may be higher. There is evidence that some subtypes of TNBC may require MRM rather than BCS for optimal long-term outcomes. More research is needed to establish whether TNBC-specific approaches to locoregional treatment may be required.

Phase IB study of the EpCAM antibody adecatumumab combined with docetaxel in patients with EpCAM-positive relapsed or refractory advanced-stage breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Targeted therapy options in HER2-negative breast cancer are limited. This open-label, multicenter phase IB dose-escalation trial was conducted to determine safety, tolerability, and antitumor activity of a combination of docetaxel (Taxotere) and increasing doses of adecatumumab, a human IgG1 antibody targeting epithelial cell adhesion molecule (EpCAM), in EpCAM-positive relapsed or primary refractory advanced-stage breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients pretreated with up to four prior chemotherapy regimens received increasing adecatumumab doses either every 3 weeks (q3w) or weekly (qw) combined with docetaxel (100 mg/m(2) q3w). Primary end points were safety and tolerability. Antitumor activity was evaluated according to RECIST. Clinical benefit was defined as complete or partial response or stable disease for ≥24 weeks. RESULTS: Thirty-one evaluable patients were treated. Most adverse events were mild to moderate in severity. Neutropenia, leukocytopenia, lymphopenia, and diarrhea (dose-limiting) were the most frequent toxic effects. Maximum tolerated doses of adecatumumab given in combination with docetaxel were 550 mg/m(2) q3w and 360 mg/m(2) qw. Clinical benefit was observed in 44% of patients treated with q3w adecatumumab and docetaxel, increasing to 63% in patients with high EpCAM-expressing tumors. CONCLUSION: Combination therapy of adecatumumab and docetaxel is safe, feasible, and potentially active in heavily pretreated advanced-stage breast cancer.

Triple negative breast cancer: proposals for a pragmatic definition and implications for patient management and trial design.

In trials in triple negative breast cancer (TNBC), oestrogen and progesterone receptor negativity should be defined as < 1% positive cells. Negativity is a ratio of <2 between Her2 gene copy number and centromere of chromosome 17 or a copy number of 4 or less. In routine practice, immunohistochemistry is acceptable given stringent quality assurance. Triple negativity emerging after neoadjuvant treatment differs from primary TN and such patients should not enter TNBC trials. Patients relapsing with TN metastases should be eligible even if their primary was positive. Rare TN subtypes such as apocrine, adenoid-cystic and low-grade metaplastic tumours should be excluded. TN and basal-like (BL) signatures overlap but are not equivalent. Since the significance of basal cytokeratin or EGFR overexpression is not known and we lack validated assays, these features should not be used to subclassify TN tumours. Tissue collection in trials is mandatory so the effect on outcome of different tumour phenotypes and BRCA mutation can be explored. No prospective studies have established that TN tumours have particular sensitivity or resistance to any specific chemotherapy agent or radiation. TNBC patients should be treated according to tumour and clinical characteristics.

[Vaginal hysterectomy and bilateral adnexectomy for female to male transsexuals in an interdisciplinary concept]. / Vaginale Hysterektomie und beidseitige Adnexektomie in interdisziplinärem Konzept bei Frau zu Mann - Transsexualismus.

BACKGROUND: FtM reassignment surgeries are rare and require interdisciplinary cooperation of plastic surgeons and gynaecologists. There are only few homogeneous data and standardised recommendations about the operative access to hysterectomy and bilateral adnexectomy of FtM transsexual patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 2006 and 2009 106 FtM transsexuals were hysterectomised in an interdisciplinary concept of plastic surgeons and gynaecologists in the Frauenklinik des Rotkreuzklinikums München. Firstly plastic surgeons performed a complete colpectomy, after that a vaginal hysterectomy with bilateral adnexectomy was carried out by gynaecologists. Simultaneously plastic surgeons performed a bilateral subcutaneous adenomammectomy on the FtM patients, and the removed vaginal tissue was prepared for preforming a new urethra. In the next step the vagina was closed by plastic surgeons and the urethra preformed. RESULTS: In 103 of 106 cases (97.2%) hysterectomy and bilateral adnexectomy were performed through the vagina. The complication rate was 5.4%. The vaginal hysterectomy and the bilateral adnexectomy lasted 52 min on average. DISCUSSION: Vaginal, abdominal or laparoscopic approaches provide possible operative access for hysterectomy and bilateral adnexectomy in FtM transsexuals. A data comparison shows that the rate of complications with our FtM transsexuals operated through the vagina was not higher than that with non-transsexual patients operated through the vagina for benign illnesses of the uterus. There are advantages of the vaginal hysterectomy for patients concerning a reduced occurrence of scars and avoiding injuries of the rectus muscle as an important precondition for phalloplasty. The bilaterally performed subcutaneous adenomammectomy and the preparation of the removed vaginal tissue for the preformation of the urethra can be carried out simultaneously, meaning that the time for operation and the stay in hospital will be shortened and costs will be reduced as well. The problem of a relatively narrow field for the operation will be minimised or even solved by the preceding colpectomy. CONCLUSION: Realising the vaginal hysterectomy with bilateral vaginal adnexectomy after performing a total colpectomy from our point of view is the optimal choice concerning operative methods for reassignment surgeries.

Surgery following neoadjuvant therapy in patients with HER2-positive locally advanced or inflammatory breast cancer participating in the NeOAdjuvant Herceptin (NOAH) study.

AIM: To describe surgical outcomes in patients with HER2-positive locally advanced (LABC) or inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) participating in the NeOAdjuvant Herceptin (NOAH) study (ISRCTN86043495). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 235 patients with HER2-positive disease were randomized to neoadjuvant trastuzumab plus chemotherapy (doxorubicin plus paclitaxel, followed by paclitaxel, followed by cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and fluorouracil) or neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone. Of these patients, 228 received their allocated treatment (115 received trastuzumab plus chemotherapy and 113 received chemotherapy alone) and were potentially eligible for surgery. Mastectomy was required for all patients with IBC and was recommended for all patients with LABC. However, breast-conserving therapy could be considered for patients with peripheral neoplasms measuring ≤ 4 cm in diameter at diagnosis, with a favorable ratio of tumor to breast volume, or at the patient's request if there had been a good response to treatment. RESULTS: As previously reported, the addition of trastuzumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy improved the overall, complete and pathological complete response to therapy and significantly improved event-free survival (the primary endpoint of the study). Trastuzumab also enabled more patients to have breast conserving surgery (BCS) (23% versus 13% respectively) without an apparent detrimental effect on local disease control (no patient treated with trastuzumab plus chemotherapy had experienced a local recurrence after BCS at the time of analysis). CONCLUSIONS: Although this was not an aim of the trial, neoadjuvant trastuzumab given concurrently with chemotherapy enabled 23% of patients with HER2-positive LABC/IBC to avoid mastectomy (including a small number of patients with IBC).

Oblimersen combined with docetaxel, adriamycin and cyclophosphamide as neo-adjuvant systemic treatment in primary breast cancer: final results of a multicentric phase I study.

BACKGROUND: Combining the Bcl-2 down-regulator oblimersen with cytotoxic treatment leads to synergistic antitumor effects in preclinical trials. This multicentric phase I study was carried out to evaluate maximum tolerated dose (MTD), safety and preliminary efficacy of oblimersen in combination with docetaxel, adriamycin and cyclophosphamide as neo-adjuvant systemic treatment (NST) in primary breast cancer (PBC). METHODS: Previously untreated patients with PBC T2-4a-c N0-3 M0 received one cycle of docetaxel 75 mg/m(2), adriamycin 50 mg/m(2) and cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m(2) administered on day 5 combined with escalating doses of oblimersen as a 24-h continuous infusion on days 1-7 followed by five cycles of combination of docetaxel, adriamycin and cyclophosphamide (TAC) without oblimersen every 3 weeks. Prophylactic antibiotic therapy and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor administration were used in all six cycles. Blood serum samples were taken throughout the treatment period for pharmacokinetic analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients were enrolled (median age, 50 years; ductal-invasive histology, 68%; tumorsize 2-5 cm, 61%; grade 3, 43%; hormone receptor negative, 36%; Her2 positive 18%) and received oblimersen in a dose of 3 mg/kg/day (cohort I, nine patients), 5 mg/kg/day (cohort II, nine patients) and 7 mg/kg/day (cohort III, 10 patients) respectively. No dose-limiting toxicity occurred. Following oblimersen combined with TAC, the most severe toxicity was neutropenia [National Cancer Institute-Common Toxicity Criteria (NCI-CTC) grades 1-2/3/4] which developed in 0/0/56% of patients (cohort I), 11/0/56% of patients (cohort II) and 20/20/50% of patients (cohort III). No febrile neutropenia occurred. Most common adverse events (all NCI-CTC grade < or = 2) were fatigue, nausea, alopecia, headache and flue-like symptoms observed in 78% (cohort I), 89% (cohort II) and 90% (cohort III) of patients. With increasing dose of oblimersen, a higher incidence of grade IV leukopenia and neutropenia was noted. At the MTD of 7 mg/kg/day of oblimersen, serious adverse events occurred in 40% of the patients. CONCLUSION: Oblimersen up to a dose of 7 mg/kg/day administered as a 24-h infusion on days 1-7 can be safely administered in combination with standard TAC on day 5 as NST in patients with PBC. The safety and preliminary efficacy warrants further evaluation of oblimersen in combination with every cycle of the TAC regimen in a randomized trial.

Pegfilgrastim +/- ciprofloxacin for primary prophylaxis with TAC (docetaxel/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide) chemotherapy for breast cancer. Results from the GEPARTRIO study.

BACKGROUND: TAC (docetaxel/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide) is associated with high incidences of grade 4 neutropenia and febrile neutropenia (FN). This analysis compared the efficacies of four regimens for primary prophylaxis of FN and related toxic effects in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant TAC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with stage T2-T4 primary breast cancer were scheduled to receive 6-8 cycles of TAC. Primary prophylaxis was: ciprofloxacin 500 mg orally twice daily on days 5-14 (n = 253 patients; 1478 cycles), daily granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) (filgrastim 5 microg/kg/day or lenograstim 150 microg/m(2)/day) on days 5-10 (n = 377; 2400 cycles), pegfilgrastim 6 mg on day 2 (n = 305; 1930 cycles), or pegfilgrastim plus ciprofloxacin (n = 321; 1890 cycles). RESULTS: Pegfilgrastim with/without ciprofloxacin was significantly more effective than daily G-CSF or ciprofloxacin in preventing FN (5% and 7% versus 18% and 22% of patients; all P < 0.001), grade 4 neutropenia, and leukopenia. Pegfilgrastim plus ciprofloxacin completely prevented first cycle FN (P < 0.01 versus pegfilgrastim alone) and fatal neutropenic events. CONCLUSION: Ciprofloxacin alone, or daily G-CSF from day 5-10 (as in common practice), provided suboptimal protection against FN and related toxic effects in patients receiving TAC. Pegfilgrastim was significantly more effective in this setting, especially if given with ciprofloxacin.

Recommendations from an international expert panel on the use of neoadjuvant (primary) systemic treatment of operable breast cancer: new perspectives 2006.

Neoadjuvant (primary systemic) treatment has become a standard option for primary operable disease for patients who are candidates for adjuvant systemic chemotherapy, irrespective of the size of the tumor. Because of new treatments and new understandings of breast cancer, however, recommendations published in 2006 regarding neoadjuvant treatment for operable disease required updating. Therefore, a third international panel of representatives of a number of breast cancer clinical research groups was convened in September 2006 to update these recommendations. As part of this effort, data published to date were critically reviewed and indications for neoadjuvant treatment were newly defined.

[Management of breast cancer treatment -- a multidisciplinary approach]. / Mammakarzinom Behandlun. Eine multidisziplinäre Herausforderung.

The management of breast cancer care poses very high expectations on implementing the treatment recommendations and guidelines for diagnostic procedures into routine treatment. Most recently a majority of these tasks has been transferred to the responsibilities of the breast centers being established all over Germany these days. Guidelines on treatment and diagnostic procedures and minimal invasive techniques have therefore been discussed among 1 300 colleagues and experts at the Duesseldorfer Symposium in June 2004.