Adjuvant epirubicin followed by cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and fluorouracil (CMF) vs CMF in early breast cancer: results with over 7 years median follow-up from the randomised phase III NEAT/BR9601 trials.

BACKGROUND: The National Epirubicin Adjuvant Trial (NEAT) and BR9601 trials tested the benefit of epirubicin when added to cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil (E-CMF) compared with standard CMF in adjuvant chemotherapy for women with early breast cancer. This report details longer follow-up with interesting additional time-dependent analyses. METHODS: National Epirubicin Adjuvant Trial used epirubicin (E) 3-weekly for four cycles followed by classical (c) CMF for four cycles (E-CMF) compared with cCMF for six cycles. BR9601 used E 3-weekly for four cycles followed by CMF 3-weekly for four cycles, compared with CMF 3-weekly for eight cycles. RESULTS: In all, 2391 eligible patients were randomised and with a median 7.4-year follow-up, E-CMF confirmed a significant benefit over CMF in both relapse-free survival (RFS) (78% vs 71% 5 years RFS, respectively, hazard ratio (HR)=0.75 (95% CI: 0.65-0.86), P<0.0001) and overall survival (OS) (84% vs 78% 5 years OS, respectively, HR=0.76 (95% CI: 0.65-0.89), P=0.0007). Interaction of treatment effect and prognostic factors was demonstrated for duplication of chromosome 17 centromeric enumeration (Ch17CEP) as previously reported. Poor prognostic factors at diagnosis (ER and PR negative and HER2 positive) showed time-dependent annual hazard rates for RFS and OS. In univariate analysis, these factors demonstrated more favourable HRs for RFS after 5 years. Treatment effects also suggested a differential benefit for E-CMF within the first 5 years for poor prognosis tumours. CONCLUSION: Longer follow-up has confirmed E-CMF as significantly superior to CMF for all patients. Ch17CEP duplication was the only biomarker that demonstrated significant treatment interaction. Standard poor prognostic factors at diagnosis were time-dependent, and after 5 years disease-free, poor prognosis patients demonstrated favourable HRs for survival.

The cost-effectiveness of adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer: A comparison of no chemotherapy and first, second, and third generation regimens for patients with differing prognoses.

BACKGROUND: The risk of recurrence following surgery in women with early breast cancer varies, depending upon prognostic factors. Adjuvant chemotherapy reduces this risk; however, increasingly effective regimens are associated with higher costs and toxicity profiles, making it likely that different regimens may be cost-effective for women with differing prognoses. To investigate this we performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of four treatment strategies: (1) no chemotherapy, (2) chemotherapy using cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) (a first generation regimen), (3) chemotherapy using Epirubicin-CMF (E-CMF) or fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FEC60) (a second generation regimens), and (4) chemotherapy with FEC60 followed by docetaxel (FEC-D) (a third generation regimen). These adjuvant chemotherapy regimens were used in three large UK-led randomised controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: A Markov model was used to simulate the natural progression of early breast cancer and the impact of chemotherapy on modifying this process. The probability of a first recurrent event within the model was estimated for women with different prognostic risk profiles using a parametric regression-based survival model incorporating established prognostic factors. Other probabilities, treatment effects, costs and quality of life weights were estimated primarily using data from the three UK-led RCTs, a meta-analysis of all relevant RCTs, and other published literature. The model predicted the lifetime costs, quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and cost-effectiveness of the four strategies for women with differing prognoses. Sensitivity analyses investigated the impact of uncertain parameters and model assumptions. FINDINGS: For women with an average to high risk of recurrence (based upon prognostic factors and any other adjuvant therapies received), FEC-D appeared most cost-effective assuming a threshold of £20,000 per QALY for the National Health Service (NHS). For younger low risk women, E-CMF/FEC60 tended to be the optimal strategy and, for some older low risk women, the model suggested a policy of no chemotherapy was cost-effective. For no patient group was CMF chemotherapy the preferred option. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated cost-effectiveness results to be particularly sensitive to the treatment effect estimate for FEC-D and the future price of docetaxel. INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, this analysis is the first cost-effectiveness comparison of no chemotherapy, and first, second, and third generation adjuvant chemotherapy regimens for early breast cancer patients with differing prognoses. The results demonstrate the potential for different treatment strategies to be cost-effective for different types of patients. These findings may prove useful for policy makers attempting to formulate cost-effective treatment guidelines in the field of early breast cancer.

NEAT: National Epirubicin Adjuvant Trial--toxicity, delivered dose intensity and quality of life.

The NEAT trial reported considerable benefit for ECMF (epirubicin followed by cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil) of 28% for relapse-free survival (RFS) and 30% for overall survival (OS), when compared with classical CMF in early breast cancer. To assess tolerability, toxicity, dose intensity and quality of life (QoL) analyses were undertaken. All 2021 eligible patients had common toxicity criteria (CTC), delivered chemotherapy and supportive treatments details and long-term morbidities recorded. The QoL substudy used multiple validated measures. ECMF produced low CTC scores, although higher than CMF for nausea, vomiting, alopecia, constipation, stomatitis (P<0.001), infection (P=0.001) and fatigue (P=0.03). Supportive treatments required, however, were similar across randomised treatments. On-treatment deaths were more common with CMF (13) than ECMF(5). Optimal course-delivered dose intensity (CDDI > or =85%) was received more often by ECMF patients (83 vs 76%: P=0.0002), and was associated with better RFS (P=0.0006). QoL over 2 years was equivalent across treatments, despite minimally worse side effects for ECMF during treatment. ECMF benefit spanned all levels of toxicity, CDDI and QoL. There are no reported acute myeloid leukaemias or cardiac dysfunctions. ECMF is tolerable, deliverable, and significantly more effective than CMF, with no serious long-term toxicity or QoL detriment.