[Reattendance of women for breast cancer screening programs. A review]. / Participation secondaire des femmes au dépistage organisé du cancer du sein Revue de la littérature.

BACKGROUND: In France, breast cancer is the most frequently occurring cancer and the leading cause of cancer deaths in women. Breast cancer screening has been shown to reduce breast cancer mortality by 30% provided attendance rate is 70% and re-screening interval is two to three years. Maintaining a high rate of reattendance is also important. The decline with time of completion rates of re-screening will lessen the benefits of a breast cancer screening program. METHODS: A review of published studies examining factors associated with attendance and reattendance to breast cancer screening. RESULTS: Positive views about initial screening are determining factors in reattendance: mammography should not be painful and embarrassing, appointments should be punctual and clinic staff courteous and supportive. Psychological factors influencing attendance also influence reattendance as does intention to participate, a major predictor of repeat participation and as do perceived susceptibility of breast cancer, perceived benefits of mammography, absence of emotional barriers. These factors can be modified by experience of previous screening. Other predicting factors of attendance continue to influence reattendance: practice of other preventive health behaviors, outside support from physicians, knowledge of breast cancer and screening. CONCLUSION: A better understanding of factors influencing attendance is necessary to increase the impact of breast cancer screening. Field studies are necessary to support the elaboration of publicity campaigns aimed at increasing participation.

Results of a phase III prospective, randomised trial, comparing mitoxantrone and vinorelbine (MV) in combination with standard FAC/FEC in front-line therapy of metastatic breast cancer.

This comparative phase III trial of mitoxantrone+vinorelbine (MV) versus 5-fluorouracil+cyclophosphamide+either doxorubicin or epirubicin (FAC/FEC) in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer was conducted to determine whether MV would produce equivalent efficacy, while resulting in an improved tolerance in relation to alopecia and nausea/vomiting. This multicentre study recruited and randomised 281 patients with metastatic breast cancer; 280 were evaluable for response survival and toxicity (138 received FAC/FEC, 142 received MV). Patient characteristics were matched in each arm and stratification for prior exposure to adjuvant therapy was made prospectively. The overall response rate (ORR) was equivalent in the two arms (33.3% for FAC/FEC versus 34.5% for MV), but MV was more effective in patients who had received prior adjuvant therapy (13% (95% confidence interval (CI) 3-23) for FAC/FEC versus 33% (95% CI 20-47) for MV P=0.025) with a better progression-free survival (PFS) (5 months (range 1-18 months) versus 8 months (range 1-27 months); P=0.0007 for FAC/FEC versus MV, respectively) while FAC/FEC was more effective in previously untreated patients (ORR 43% (95% CI 33-53) versus 35% (95% CI 25-45), P=0.26; PFS 9 months (range 0-29 months) versus 6 months (range 0-26 months) P=0.014). Toxicity was monitored through the initial six cycles of therapy; febrile neutropenia and delayed haematological recovery was more frequent for MV (P=0.001), while nausea/vomiting of grades 3-4 was greater for FAC/FEC (P=0.031), as was alopecia (P=0.0001), cardiotoxicity was the same for the two regimens. MV represents a chemotherapy combination with equivalent efficacy to standard FAC/FEC and improved results for patients who have previously received adjuvant chemotherapy. Toxicity must be balanced to allow for increased haematological suppression and risk of febrile neutropenia with MV compared with a higher risk of subjectively unpleasant side-effects such as nausea/vomiting and alopecia with FAC/FEC.

Phase I study of paclitaxel and epirubicin in patients with metastatic breast cancer: a preliminary report on safety.

Attempting to develop a new active, convenient regimen, we initiated a phase I study of paclitaxel (Taxol; Bristol-Myers squibb Company, Princeton, NJ) combined with epirubicin (Farmitalia Carlo Erba, Milan, Italy) in patients with metastatic breast cancer. In addition to standard eligibility criteria, patients with chemotherapy-naive metastasis and at least one measurable lesion had to have left ventricular ejection fractions of at least 50%; the metastatic relapse had to have occurred more than 6 months after adjuvant treatment. Anthracycline-pretreated patients could not have received cumulative doses of more than 300 mg/m2 doxorubicin, 450 mg/m2 epirubicin, or 70 mg/m2 mitoxantrone. An intravenous bolus dose of epirubicin was followed by a 3-hour paclitaxel infusion, with courses repeated every 3 weeks. To date, seven dose levels have been investigated and 31 patients have been treated, 19 of whom had already received anthracyclines. Grades 3 and 4 neutropenia occurred in 37% and 19% of 123 courses, respectively, with five episodes of febrile neutropenia. Grade 2 or 3 neurotoxicity has been observed in 42% of patients and cardiac toxicity in four patients (13%), all of whom had already received anthracyclines. One patient experienced transient myocardial ischemia, one had an asymptomatic decrease in ejection fraction, and two patients had clinical heart failure that required treatment. Dose-limiting toxicity was reached at dose level 5 (paclitaxel 200 mg/m2 plus epirubicin 60 mg/m2), with two of three patients experiencing febrile neutropenia. Reducing the epirubicin dose to 50 mg/m2, however, allowed the paclitaxel dose to be escalated to 250 mg/m2. At this dose level, only one of six patients experienced febrile neutropenia. At a preliminary response evaluation (dose levels 1 to 6), 11 patients (44%) had partial responses, 12 patients (48%) had stable disease, and disease progressed in two patients. We conclude that the combination paclitaxel/epirubicin is safe for patients with metastatic breast cancer and, at this early evaluation, shows promising antitumor activity. Additional patients will be treated at dose level 5 to confirm whether dose-limiting toxicity occurs at this step. Indeed, we took into consideration that dose-limiting toxicity observed at this particular dose level in two of three patients might be due to hazard, since paclitaxel dose escalation up to 250 mg/m2 was further possible in association with 50 mg/m2 epirubicin.

Dose-escalation study of single dose mitoxantrone in combination with timed sequential chemotherapy in patients with refractory or relapsing acute myelogenous leukemia.

A dose-escalation study was realized in order to assess the maximally tolerated dose (MTD) of high-dose mitoxantrone in a single injection combined with cytarabine and etoposide (EMA regimen) in refractory or relapsed acute myelogenous leukemia (AML). Between July 1997 and June 1998, 24 patients with relapsed or refractory AML entered the study. All but one patient had normal left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at baseline. Performance status according to World Health Organization (WHO) criteria was less than two in all cases. All patients have been previously treated by mitoxantrone or anthracyclines. Four cohort of ten patients were scheduled with the following doses: (1) mitoxantrone 36 mg/m2 on day 1; (2) mitoxantrone 45 mg/m2 on day 1; (3) mitoxantrone 60 mg/m2 on day 1; (4) mitoxantrone 75 mg/m2 on day 1 in combination with cytarabine 500 mg/m2 per day (days 1-3, and days 8-10), and etoposide 200 mg/m2 per day (days 8-10). All patients received the full doses of the three drugs. The limiting toxicity was defined as WHO grade 4 nonhematologic toxicity and for impairment of cardiac function by Alexander's criteria (moderate or severe toxicity). The occurrence of limiting toxicity in at least three patients from the same dose level determined the MDT. No limiting toxicity was observed in mitoxantrone dose level 1. Two limiting toxicities were observed in mitoxantrone dose level 2 (one mucositis, one moderate cardiac toxicity), and three limiting toxicities in mitoxantrone dose level 3 (1 high transaminase levels, two moderate cardiac toxicities) ending the assay. Overall, 16 patients (67%) achieved complete remission (CR). One drug-addict patient died from cerebral hemorrhage due to severe aspergillosis and was not considered as a limiting toxicity. After EMA chemotherapy, 13 patients received subsequent chemotherapy courses involving anthracyclines or their derivatives. Six patients underwent allogeneic bone marrow transplantation. No late toxicity occurred. The median survival of the entire cohort was 41.4 weeks. We conclude that (i) EMA chemotherapy using a single injection of mitoxantrone is effective in the treatment of refractory or relapsing AML; (ii) the recommended phase II dose of mitoxantrone is 45 mg/m2 administered over 30 min as a single dose in combination with cytarabine and etoposide.

Modelling the effect of breast cancer screening on related mortality using French data.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed at modelling the effect of organized breast cancer screening on mortality in France. It combined results from a Markov model for breast cancer progression, to predict number of cases by node status, and from relative survival analyses, to predict deaths. The method estimated the relative risk of mortality at 8 years, in women aged 50-69, between a population screened every two years and a reference population. METHODS: Analyses concerned cases diagnosed between 1990 and 1996, with a follow-up up to 2004 for the vital status. Markov models analysed data from 3 screening programs (300,000 mammographies) and took into account opportunistic screening among participants to avoid bias in parameter's estimates. We used survival data from cancers in the general population (n=918, 7 cancer registries) and from screened cancers (n=565, 3 cancer registries), after excluding a subgroup of screened cases with a particularly high survival. Sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Markov model main analysis lacked of fit in two out of three districts. Fit was improved in stratified analyses by age or district, though some lack of fit persisted in two districts. Assuming 10% or 20% overdiagnosed screened cancers, mortality reduction was estimated as 23% (95% CI: 4, 38%) and 19% (CI: -3, 35%) respectively. Results were highly sensitive to the exclusion in the screened cancers survival analysis. Conversely, RR estimates varied moderately according to the Markov model parameters used (stratified by age or district). CONCLUSION: The study aimed at estimating the effect of screening in a screened population compared to an unscreened control group. Such a control group does not exist in France, and we used a general population contaminated by opportunistic screening to provide a conservative estimate. Conservative choices were systematically adopted to avoid favourable estimates. A selection bias might however affect the estimates, though it should be moderate because extreme social classes are under-represented among participants. This modelling provided broad estimates for the effect of organized biennial screening in France in the early nineteen-nineties. Results will be strengthened with longer follow-up.

Multi-state Markov models in cancer screening evaluation: a brief review and case study.

This work presents a brief overview of Markov models in cancer screening evaluation and focuses on two specific models. A three-state model was first proposed to estimate jointly the sensitivity of the screening procedure and the average duration in the preclinical phase, i.e. the period when the cancer is asymptomatic but detectable by screening. A five-state model, incorporating lymph node involvement as a prognostic factor, was later proposed combined with a survival analysis to predict the mortality reduction associated with screening. The strengths and limitations of these two models are illustrated using data from French breast cancer service screening programmes. The three-state model is a useful frame but parameter estimates should be interpreted with caution. They are highly correlated and depend heavily on the parametric assumptions of the model. Our results pointed out a serious limitation to the five-state model, due to implicit assumptions which are not always verified. Although it may still be useful, there is a need for more flexible models. Over-diagnosis is an important issue for both models and induces bias in parameter estimates. It can be addressed by adding a non-progressive state, but this may provide an uncertain estimation of over-diagnosis. When the primary goal is to avoid bias, rather than to estimate over-diagnosis, it may be more appropriate to correct for over-diagnosis assuming different levels in a sensitivity analysis. This would be particularly relevant in a perspective of mortality reduction estimation.

Cefepime versus imipenem-cilastatin as empirical monotherapy in 400 febrile patients with short duration neutropenia. CEMIC (Study Group of Infectious Diseases in Cancer).

This open, comparative, randomized, multicentre equivalence study compared cefepime 2 g bd and imipenem-cilastatin 1 g tds (50 mg/kg/day) as empirical monotherapy for febrile episodes in a homogeneous cohort of cancer patients with short duration neutropenia following chemotherapy for solid tumour, lymphoma or myeloma. The study was conducted in 17 French anti-cancer centres in 1995 and 1996. Response to monotherapy was assessed 7 days after treatment and was based on resolution of fever and signs and symptoms, eradication of pathogens, absence of new infection, relapse, and death of infectious origin, without addition of other antibiotics. Patients were treated for a minimum of 4 days. Of the 400 episodes randomized, 344 (86%) were evaluable for efficacy. Patient characteristics were comparable between treatment groups. Success of monotherapy was observed in 79% of episodes with cefepime and 72% with imipenem-cilastatin (equivalence, P <0.0001). The response rate for microbiologically documented infections was 66% with cefepime and 61% with imipenem-cilastatin (bacteraemic episodes: 63% for cefepime; 44% for imipenem-cilastatin). A second antibiotic (usually a glycopeptide) was added in 20% and 21% of the cases, respectively. Overall, the response to therapy, with or without an additional antibiotic, was 95% (cefepime) and 90% (imipenem-cilastatin). Survival was similar in both groups (95% and 98%, respectively). Cefepime treatment was better tolerated, with 9% of the patients experiencing related intercurrent events compared with 19% in the imipenem-cilastatin group (P = 0.003). Nausea/vomiting was significantly more frequent in the imipenem-cilastatin group (15%) than in the cefepime group (5%; P = 0.001). Cefepime monotherapy was as effective as, and better tolerated than, imipenem-cilastatin in the empirical treatment of fever during short duration neutropenia.

High-dose methotrexate and HELP [Holoxan (ifosfamide), eldesine (vindesine), platinum]--doxorubicin in non-metastatic osteosarcoma of the extremity: a French multicentre pilot study. Fédération Nationale des Centres de Lutte contre le Cancer and Société Française d'Oncologie Pédiatrique.

UNLABELLED: This study evaluates histological response, long-term outcome, and toxicity in an intensive chemotherapy program given before surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixty-two patients (39 males, 23 females: median age 14) with biopsy, chest computerised-tomography, technetium bone-scan and magnetic resonance imaging, were enrolled. Primary localisations were femur (44%) and tibia (26%). Induction chemotherapy involved seven courses of high-dose methotrexate and two courses of HELP (ifosfamide, eldesine (vindesine), cisplatin (platinum)-doxorubicin. After surgery, patients received six courses of high-dose methotrexate and two courses of HELP-doxorubicin. RESULTS: Pre- and postoperative toxicities were similar. Fifty-nine patients underwent surgery; histological response was good in thirty-eight patients (64%) and poor in twenty-one (36%). Median follow-up is 57 months (range 30-80), with 77% overall survival and 59% progression-free survival. In a multivariate analysis, age under 10 years is the only prognostic factor that significantly correlates with outcome. CONCLUSIONS: This regimen appears to increase histological necrosis, but associates with severe toxicity. Results for patients with less necrosis at surgery are encouraging. Future trials should determine the minimum effective doses to reduce toxicity. New drugs should be added.

A phase I/II study of 4 monthly courses of high-dose cyclophosphamide and thiotepa for metastatic breast cancer patients.

This pilot phase I/II study intended to determine the maximum tolerated dose of cyclophosphamide and thiotepa administered on four consecutive courses with peripheral blood progenitor cell and granulocyte-colony stimulating factor support, as first-line therapy for hormone-refractory metastatic breast cancer patients. Twenty-eight patients were entered in the study. After two courses of epirubicin (120 mg m(-2)) and cyclophosphamide (2 g m(-2)) followed by granulocyte-colony stimulating factor injection and leukaphereses, patients received four cycles of cyclophosphamide and thiotepa. Each cycle was followed by peripheral blood progenitor cell and granulocyte-colony stimulating factor supports, then repeated every 28 to 35 days. Six escalating dose levels of cyclophosphamide and thiotepa were planned, beginning at cyclophosphamide 1.5 g m(-2) and thiotepa 200 mg m(-2). At least three patients were enrolled for each dose level. Eighteen patients completed the study. The maximum tolerated dose was 3000 mg m(-2) cyclophosphamide and 400 mg m(-2) thiotepa per course. Haematological toxicity was manageable on an outpatient basis and did not increase significantly with dose escalation. Dose-limiting toxicity was chemotherapy-induced immunosuppression, which resulted in one toxic death and two life-threatening infections. Median times to treatment failure and survival were 11 and 26 months, respectively. Three patients were alive, free of disease 30 months after completion of the study. Such therapy allows for high-dose intensity and high cumulative doses on a short period of time with manageable toxicity.