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.

Phase II clinical trials of cisplatin-then-paclitaxel and paclitaxel-then-cisplatin in patients with previously untreated advanced epithelial ovarian cancer.

PURPOSE: To examine the activity and safety of two sequentially scheduled chemotherapy regimens comprising four cycles of paclitaxel (pctx) 200 mg/m2/3 hours then four cycles ofcisplatin (cisDDP) 100 mg/m2, and vice versa, in patients with previously untreated advanced ovarian cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between January 1994 and February 1996, we recruited 30 patients to the pctx-then-cisDDP regimen and 29 to cisDDP-then-pctx, in parallel phase II trials. RESULTS: Both regimens were predictably active with responses seen in 22 of 30 patients (OR 74%; CR 27%, PR 47%) treated with pctx-then-cisDDP, as against 13 of 21 patients (OR 62%; CR 38%, PR 24%) treated with cisDDP-then-pctx. The OR rate to four cycles of pctx (induction) was 43%, with 27% disease progression; the OR to four cycles of cisDDP (induction) was 57%, with 5% progression. However, progression rates across both induction and consolidation phases were 16% (pctx-then-cisDDP) and 29% (cisDDP-then-pctx). Both regimens were unacceptably neurotoxic. II patients suffering grade 3 sensory neurotoxicity (5 on pctx-then-cisDDP, 6 on cisDDP-then-pctx) and 20 having grade 3 deafness (9 on pctx- then-cisDDP, 11 on cisDDP-then-pctx). CONCLUSION: The activity of these sequential regimens justifies their further development using the less neurotoxic platinum analogue carboplatin, perhaps combining paclitaxel with other platinum non-cross resistant drugs.