UCBG 2-08: 5-year efficacy results from the UNICANCER-PACS08 randomised phase III trial of adjuvant treatment with FEC100 and then either docetaxel or ixabepilone in patients with early-stage, poor prognosis breast cancer.

PURPOSE: UNICANCER-PACS08 compared adjuvant FEC (5-FU; epirubicin; cyclophosphamide) then docetaxel to FEC then ixabepilone in poor prognosis early breast cancer (BC). We evaluated whether replacing docetaxel with ixabepilone would increase 5-year disease-free survival (DFS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) or oestrogen receptor (ER)+/progesterone receptor (PR)-/HER2- BC patients were randomised to receive standard FEC (3 cycles) followed by 3 cycles of either docetaxel (100 mg/m2) or ixabepilone (40 mg/m2). Radiotherapy was mandatory after conservative surgery; ER+ patients received endocrine therapy. RESULTS: Seven hundred sixty-two patients were enrolled between October 2007 and September 2010. Baseline characteristics were balanced between arms. Median follow-up was 66.7 months. Median DFS was not reached; 5-year DFS rate was 76% with docetaxel and 79% with ixabepilone (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.58-1.10; p = 0.175). Median overall survival (OS) was not reached; 5-year OS rate was 86% versus 84% (HR = 0.97; 95% CI = 0.66-1.42; p = 0.897). TNBC patients treated with ixabepilone had a 23% lower risk of relapse compared to docetaxel (HR for DFS = 0.77; 95% CI = 0.53-1.11; p = 0.168). DFS was longer with ixabepilone than docetaxel in patients with grade II-III lymphocytic infiltration (HR = 0.55; 95% CI = 0.29-1.05; p = 0.063). All patients experienced ≥1 adverse events (AEs): 75% reported grade III-IV AEs and two (<1%) had grade V AEs (both with neutropenia and infection receiving ixabepilone). CONCLUSION: After adjuvant FEC, ixabepilone was comparable to docetaxel for treating poor prognosis early BC patients. The benefit of ixabepilone in subgroups (patients with TNBC and grade II-III lymphocytic infiltration) requires further evaluation.

Can treatment with Cocculine improve the control of chemotherapy-induced emesis in early breast cancer patients? A randomized, multi-centered, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains a major problem that seriously impairs the quality of life (QoL) in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy regimens. Complementary medicines, including homeopathy, are used by many patients with cancer, usually alongside with conventional treatment. A randomized, placebo-controlled Phase III study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of a complex homeopathic medicine, Cocculine, in the control of CINV in non-metastatic breast cancer patients treated by standard chemotherapy regimens. METHODS: Chemotherapy-naïve patients with non-metastatic breast cancer scheduled to receive 6 cycles of chemotherapy including at least three initial cycles of FAC 50, FEC 100 or TAC were randomized to receive standard anti-emetic treatment plus either a complex homeopathic remedy (Cocculine, registered in France for treatment of nausea and travel sickness) or the matching placebo (NCT00409071 clinicaltrials.gov). The primary endpoint was nausea score measured after the 1st chemotherapy course using the FLIE questionnaire (Functional Living Index for Emesis) with 5-day recall. Secondary endpoints were: vomiting measured by the FLIE score, nausea and vomiting measured by patient self-evaluation (EVA) and investigator recording (NCI-CTC AE V3.0) and treatment compliance. RESULTS: From September 2005 to January 2008, 431 patients were randomized: 214 to Cocculine (C) and 217 to placebo (P). Patient characteristics were well-balanced between the 2 arms. Overall, compliance to study treatments was excellent and similar between the 2 arms. A total of 205 patients (50.9%; 103 patients in the placebo and 102 in the homeopathy arms) had nausea FLIE scores > 6 indicative of no impact of nausea on quality of life during the 1st chemotherapy course. There was no difference between the 2 arms when primary endpoint analysis was performed by chemotherapy stratum; or in the subgroup of patients with susceptibility to nausea and vomiting before inclusion. In addition, nausea, vomiting and global emesis FLIE scores were not statistically different at any time between the two study arms. The frequencies of severe (Grade ≥ 2) nausea and vomiting were low in our study (nausea: P: 17.6% vs C: 15.7%, p=0.62; vomiting: P: 10.8% vs C: 12.0%, p=0.72 during the first course). CONCLUSION: This double-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomised Phase III study showed that adding a complex homeopathic medicine (Cocculine) to standard anti-emetic prophylaxis does not improve the control of CINV in early breast cancer patients.