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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

Goserelin, a depot gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist in the treatment of premenopausal patients with metastatic breast cancer. German Zoladex Trial Group.

One hundred thirty-four pre- and perimenopausal patients presenting with metastatic breast cancer (median age, 42 years; range, 25 to 55) were treated with goserelin (Zoladex [ICI 118 630]; ICI Pharma, Plankstadt, Germany) a long-acting gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH)-analogue depot formulation, injected subcutaneously every 4 weeks, as a first-line therapy. One hundred eighteen patients were evaluable for response. Serum concentrations of estradiol, luteinizing hormones (LH), and follicle-stimulating hormones were significantly suppressed by Zoladex. Mean serum estradiol values fell into the range of castrated or postmenopausal women within 2 to 3 weeks of therapy. This suppression was maintained for the duration of therapy. Overall objective response was: 12 (10.2%) complete remission; 41 (34.7%) partial remission; 33 (28.0%) no change; and 32 (27.1%) progression. In responders, the median time to response was 4 months (range, 2 to 11 months), median duration of response was 8 + months (range 2 to 24 months), and median time to progression was 11 + months (range, 5 to 30 months). Objective responses were seen for different sites of metastases: loco-regional (62.5%), bone (46.7%), visceral (45.0%), and multiple (35.1%). Tumor remission was more common in patients in which the primary tumor was estrogen receptor (ER)-positive (49.3%) or ER-unknown (44.0%), but appreciable response rates were also observed in ER-poor patients (33.3%). Zoladex depot was well tolerated both locally and systemically. It produced effective castration and the objective response rates and duration of remission are at least comparable to those seen following oophorectomy; however, the side effects are less. The use of depot Zoladex avoids the psychological trauma and operative morbidity of the irreversible operative castration.

Anastrozole, a potent and selective aromatase inhibitor, versus megestrol acetate in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer: results of overview analysis of two phase III trials. Arimidex Study Group.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of anastrozole (1 and 10 mg once daily), a selective, oral, nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor, and megestrol acetate (40 mg four times daily), in postmenopausal women who progressed following tamoxifen treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two randomized, double-blind for anastrozole, open-label for megestrol acetate, parallel-group, multicenter trials were conducted in 764 patients. Because both trials were identical in design, an analysis of the combined results was performed to strengthen interpretation of results from each trial. RESULTS: The median follow-up duration was approximately 6 months. The estimated progression hazards ratios were 0.97 (97.5% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 1.24) for anastrozole 1 mg versus megestrol acetate and 0.92 (97.5% CI, 0.71 to 1.19) for anastrozole 10 mg versus megestrol acetate. The overall median time to progression was approximately 21 weeks. Approximately one third of patients in each group benefited from treatment. Twenty-seven patients (10.3%) in the anastrozole 1-mg group, 22 (8.9%) in the anastrozole 10-mg group, and 20 (7.9%) in the megestrol acetate group had a complete or partial response, and 66 (25.1%), 56 (22.6%), and 66 (26.1%) patients, respectively, had stable disease for > or = 24 weeks. For all end points, individual trial results were similar to the results of the combined analysis. Anastrozole and megestrol acetate were well tolerated. Gastrointestinal disturbance was more common among patients in the anastrozole groups than the megestrol acetate group; the difference between the anastrozole 10 mg and megestrol acetate groups was significant (P = .005). Significantly fewer patients in the anastrozole 1-mg (P < .0001) and 10-mg (P < .002) groups had weight gain than in the megestrol acetate group. More than 30% of megestrol acetate-treated patients had weight gain > or = 5%, and 10% of patients had weight gain > or = 10%. Patients who received megestrol acetate continued to gain weight over time. CONCLUSION: Anastrozole, 1 and 10 mg once daily, is well tolerated and as effective as megestrol acetate in the treatment of postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer who progressed following tamoxifen treatment. Moreover, anastrozole therapy avoids the weight gain associated with megestrol acetate treatment.

Maximized reduction of primary breast tumor size using preoperative chemotherapy with doxorubicin and docetaxel.

PURPOSE: To assess the toxicity and efficacy of preoperative chemotherapy with doxorubicin and docetaxel in patients with primary operable breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-two patients with histologically confirmed primary breast cancer tumors of at least 2 cm in diameter received doxorubicin (50 mg/m(2) intravenously [IV] over 15 minutes) and docetaxel (75 mg/m(2) IV over 1 hour) every 14 (24 patients) or 21 (18 patients) days for four cycles. RESULTS: The median size of the primary tumor decreased significantly, from 4 cm (range, 2 to 10 cm) to 2 cm (range, 0 to 5 cm) on physical examination and from 3.4 cm (range, 1 to 8 cm) to 1. 8 cm (range, 0 to 4 cm) on sonography (P <.001). The overall response rate as assessed by physical examination was 93%, and complete remission of the primary tumor occurred in 33% of patients. The remission rate as assessed by sonographic measurement was 67%. Two patients (5%) had histologically confirmed complete responses. Sonography was more reliable than palpation in predicting histologically determined response. No grade 4 toxicity was noted, and grade 3 toxicity was reported with alopecia (95%), lethargy (17%), loss of appetite (10%), stomatitis (7%), leukopenia (5%), skin desquamation (5%), infection (5%), motor neuropathy (2%), and nausea (2%). The 3-week schedule was associated with less toxicity than the 2-week schedule. CONCLUSION: Preoperative combination chemotherapy with doxorubicin and docetaxel is highly effective and feasible in primary operable breast cancer.

Dose-dense doxorubicin, docetaxel, and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor support with or without tamoxifen as preoperative therapy in patients with operable carcinoma of the breast: a randomized, controlled, open phase IIb study.

PURPOSE: To investigate the effect of adding tamoxifen to a preoperative dose-dense doxorubicin and docetaxel regimen on the pathologic response of primary operable breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (tumor size > or = 3 cm, N0 to 2, M0) were prospectively randomized to receive every 14 days a total of four cycles of doxorubicin 50 mg/m2 and docetaxel 75 mg/m(2), either with (ADocT) or without (ADoc) simultaneous tamoxifen. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) was routinely given on days 5 to 10. Surgery followed 8 to 10 weeks after the start of treatment. RESULTS: Within 14 months, 250 patients were included in the study at 56 centers. Of 992 planned cycles, 97.9% were administered. Pathologically complete remission (pCR) with no detectable viable tumor cells was achieved in 9.7%. There was a nonsignificant difference of -1.2% in favor of ADoc, with a 95% confidence interval of -8.6% to 6.2%. A further 2.4% had only noninvasive tumor residues, and 13.8% had focal invasive residues. Complete and partial responses detected by palpation were observed in 28.9% and 52.4%, respectively. The response rates (complete and partial) by best appropriate imaging methods were 77.5% and 67.5% for ADocT and ADoc, respectively. Breast conservation was possible in 68.8% of the patients. A tendency toward more frequent toxic events was observed with ADocT treatment. Significant predictors of pCR to chemotherapy were negative lymph node and negative estrogen receptor status. CONCLUSION: A dose-dense regimen of ADoc with G-CSF offers high compliance, moderate toxicity, and rapid efficacy as a form of preoperative chemotherapy in operable breast cancer. Concurrent treatment with tamoxifen for 8 weeks could not improve the pathologic response rate.

Goserelin versus cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil as adjuvant therapy in premenopausal patients with node-positive breast cancer: The Zoladex Early Breast Cancer Research Association Study.

PURPOSE: Current adjuvant therapies have improved survival for premenopausal patients with breast cancer but may have short-term toxic effects and long-term effects associated with premature menopause. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The Zoladex Early Breast Cancer Research Association study assessed the efficacy and tolerability of goserelin (3.6 mg every 28 days for 2 years; n = 817) versus cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) chemotherapy (six 28-day cycles; n = 823) for adjuvant treatment in premenopausal patients with node-positive breast cancer. RESULTS: Analysis was performed when 684 events had been achieved, and the median follow-up was 6 years. A significant interaction between treatment and estrogen receptor (ER) status was found (P =.0016). In ER-positive patients (approximately 74%), goserelin was equivalent to CMF for disease-free survival (DFS) (hazard ratio [HR], 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84 to 1.20). In ER-negative patients, goserelin was inferior to CMF for DFS (HR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.27 to 2.44). Amenorrhea occurred in more than 95% of goserelin patients by 6 months versus 58.6% of CMF patients. Menses returned in most goserelin patients after therapy stopped, whereas amenorrhea was generally permanent in CMF patients (22.6% v 76.9% amenorrheic at 3 years). Chemotherapy-related side effects such as nausea/vomiting, alopecia, and infection were higher with CMF than with goserelin during CMF treatment. Side effects related to estrogen suppression were initially higher with goserelin, but when goserelin treatment stopped, reduced to a level below that observed in the CMF group. CONCLUSION: Goserelin offers an effective, well-tolerated alternative to CMF in premenopausal patients with ER-positive and node-positive early breast cancer.

A randomised trial comparing two doses of the new selective aromatase inhibitor anastrozole (Arimidex) with megestrol acetate in postmenopausal patients with advanced breast cancer.

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of the new aromatase inhibitor 'ARIMIDEX' (anastrozole) with megestrol acetate in the treatment of advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal women. Anastrozole is a new potent and highly selective non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor. We conducted a prospective randomised trial comparing two doses of anastrozole (1 and 10 mg orally once daily) with megestrol acetate (40 mg orally four times daily) in postmenopausal patients with advanced breast cancer who progressed after prior tamoxifen therapy. All patients were analysed for efficacy as randomised (intention to treat) and for tolerability as per treatment received. Of the 378 patients who entered the study, 135 were randomised to anastrozole 1 mg, 118 to anastrozole 10 mg, and 125 patients to megestrol acetate. After a median follow-up of 192 days, response rate which included complete response, partial response and patients who had disease stabilisation for 6 months or more was 34% for anastrozole 1 mg, 33.9% for anastrozole 10 mg and 32.8% for megestrol acetate. There were no statistically significant differences between either dose of anastrozole and megestrol acetate in terms of objective response rate, time to objective progression of disease or time to treatment failure. The three treatments were generally well tolerated, but more patients on megestrol acetate reported weight gain, oedema and dyspnoea as adverse events while more patients on anastrozole reported gastro-intestinal disorders, usually in the form of mild transient nausea. Patients on anastrozole did not report higher incidences of oestrogen withdrawal symptoms. Anastrozole is an effective and well tolerated treatment for postmenopausal patients with advanced breast cancer. The higher 10 mg dose did not result in additional clinical benefit, but was well tolerated reflecting the good therapeutic margin with anastrozole. Based on this data, anastrozole 1 mg should be the recommended therapeutic dose.

A randomised study to compare the effect of the luteinising hormone releasing hormone (LHRH) analogue goserelin with or without tamoxifen in pre- and perimenopausal patients with advanced breast cancer.

The use of goserelin with or without tamoxifen was investigated in a randomised multicentre study involving 318 pre- and perimenopausal advanced breast cancer patients. With a median follow-up of 93 weeks, 31% of goserelin-treated patients had objective responses (UICC criteria) compared with 38% of goserelin plus tamoxifen-treated patients (P = 0.24). There was a modest benefit in favour of combination therapy in time to progression (P = 0.03) but not in survival (P = 0.25). Median follow-up for survival was 117.5 weeks. Median times for disease progression and survival were 23 and 127 weeks in the goserelin alone group and 28 and 140 weeks in the combination group, respectively. In 115 patients with skeletal metastases only, significant differences in favour of combination therapy were seen in response rate, time to progression and survival. Both treatments were well tolerated and no additional safety issues were associated with combination therapy.