Ultrasound is at least as good as magnetic resonance imaging in predicting tumour size post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of clinical imaging of the primary breast tumour post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) related to the post-neoadjuvant histological tumour size (gold standard) and whether this varies with breast cancer subtype. In this study, results of both magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound (US) were reported. METHODS: Patients with invasive breast cancer were enrolled in the INTENS study between 2006 and 2009. We included 182 patients, of whom data were available for post-NAC MRI (n=155), US (n=123), and histopathological tumour size. RESULTS: MRI estimated residual tumour size with <10-mm discordance in 54% of patients, overestimated size in 28% and underestimated size in 18% of patients. With US, this was 63%, 20% and 17%, respectively. The negative predictive value in hormone receptor-positive tumours for both MRI and US was low, 26% and 33%, respectively. The median deviation in clinical tumour size as percentage of pathological tumour was 63% (P25=26, P75=100) and 49% (P25=22, P75=100) for MRI and US, respectively (P=0.06). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, US was at least as good as breast MRI in providing information on residual tumour size post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy. However, both modalities suffered from a substantial percentage of over- and underestimation of tumour size and in addition both showed a low negative predictive value of pathologic complete remission (Gov nr: NCT00314977).

Cost effectiveness of primary pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in patients with breast cancer at risk of febrile neutropenia.

PURPOSE: Guidelines advise primary granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) prophylaxis during chemotherapy if risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) is more than 20%, but this comes with considerable costs. We investigated the incremental costs and effects between two treatment strategies of primary pegfilgrastim prophylaxis. METHODS: Our economic evaluation used a health care perspective and was based on a randomized study in patients with breast cancer with increased risk of FN, comparing primary G-CSF prophylaxis throughout all chemotherapy cycles (G-CSF 1-6 cycles) with prophylaxis during the first two cycles only (G-CSF 1-2 cycles). Primary outcome was cost effectiveness expressed as costs per patient with episodes of FN prevented. RESULTS: The incidence of FN increased from 10% in the G-CSF 1 to 6 cycles study arm (eight of 84 patients) to 36% in the G-CSF 1 to 2 cycles study arm (30 of 83 patients), whereas the mean total costs decreased from € 20,658 (95% CI, € 20,049 to € 21,247) to € 17,168 (95% CI € 16,239 to € 18,029) per patient, respectively. Chemotherapy and G-CSF determined 80% of the total costs. As expected, FN-related costs were higher in the G-CSF 1 to 2 cycles arm. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio for the G-CSF 1 to 6 cycles arm compared with the G-CSF 1 to 2 cycles arm was € 13,112 per patient with episodes of FN prevented. CONCLUSION: We conclude that G-CSF prophylaxis throughout all chemotherapy cycles is more effective, but more costly, compared with prophylaxis limited to the first two cycles. Whether G-CSF prophylaxis throughout all chemotherapy cycles is considered cost effective depends on the willingness to pay per patient with episodes of FN prevented.

Primary granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis during the first two cycles only or throughout all chemotherapy cycles in patients with breast cancer at risk for febrile neutropenia.

PURPOSE: Early breast cancer is commonly treated with anthracyclines and taxanes. However, combining these drugs increases the risk of myelotoxicity and may require granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) support. The highest incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) and largest benefit of G-CSF during the first cycles of chemotherapy lead to questions about the effectiveness of continued use of G-CSF throughout later cycles of chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a multicenter study, patients with breast cancer who were considered fit enough to receive 3-weekly polychemotherapy, but also had > 20% risk for FN, were randomly assigned to primary G-CSF prophylaxis during the first two chemotherapy cycles only (experimental arm) or to primary G-CSF prophylaxis throughout all chemotherapy cycles (standard arm). The noninferiority hypothesis was that the incidence of FN would be maximally 7.5% higher in the experimental compared with the standard arm. RESULTS: After inclusion of 167 eligible patients, the independent data monitoring committee advised premature study closure. Of 84 patients randomly assigned to G-CSF throughout all chemotherapy cycles, eight (10%) experienced an episode of FN. In contrast, of 83 patients randomly assigned to G-CSF during the first two cycles only, 30 (36%) had an FN episode (95% CI, 0.13 to 0.54), with a peak incidence of 24% in the third cycle (ie, first cycle without G-CSF prophylaxis). CONCLUSION: In patients with early breast cancer at high risk for FN, continued use of primary G-CSF prophylaxis during all chemotherapy cycles is of clinical relevance and thus cannot be abandoned.