Adjuvant chemotherapy and timing of tamoxifen in postmenopausal patients with endocrine-responsive, node-positive breast cancer: a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Tamoxifen is standard adjuvant treatment for postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer. We assessed the benefit of adding chemotherapy to adjuvant tamoxifen and whether tamoxifen should be given concurrently or after chemotherapy. METHODS: We undertook a phase 3, parallel, randomised trial (SWOG-8814, INT-0100) in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive, node-positive breast cancer to test two major objectives: whether the primary outcome, disease-free survival, was longer with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and fluorouracil (CAF) given every 4 weeks for six cycles plus 5 years of daily tamoxifen than with tamoxifen alone; and whether disease-free survival was longer with CAF followed by tamoxifen (CAF-T) than with CAF plus concurrent tamoxifen (CAFT). Overall survival and toxicity were predefined, important secondary outcomes for each objective. Patients in this open-label trial were randomly assigned by a computer algorithm in a 2:3:3 ratio (tamoxifen:CAF-T:CAFT) and analysis was by intention to treat of eligible patients. Groups were compared by stratified log-rank tests, followed by Cox regression analyses adjusted for significant prognostic factors. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00929591. FINDINGS: Of 1558 randomised women, 1477 (95%) were eligible for inclusion in the analysis. After a maximum of 13 years of follow-up (median 8.94 years), 637 women had a disease-free survival event (tamoxifen, 179 events in 361 patients; CAF-T, 216 events in 566 patients; CAFT, 242 events in 550 patients). For the first objective, therapy with the CAF plus tamoxifen groups combined (CAFT or CAF-T) was superior to tamoxifen alone for the primary endpoint of disease-free survival (adjusted Cox regression hazard ratio [HR] 0.76, 95% CI 0.64-0.91; p=0.002) but only marginally for the secondary endpoint of overall survival (HR 0.83, 0.68-1.01; p=0.057). For the second objective, the adjusted HRs favoured CAF-T over CAFT but did not reach significance for disease-free survival (HR 0.84, 0.70-1.01; p=0.061) or overall survival (HR 0.90, 0.73-1.10; p=0.30). Neutropenia, stomatitis, thromboembolism, congestive heart failure, and leukaemia were more frequent in the combined CAF plus tamoxifen groups than in the tamoxifen-alone group. INTERPRETATION: Chemotherapy with CAF plus tamoxifen given sequentially is more effective adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal patients with endocrine-responsive, node-positive breast cancer than is tamoxifen alone. However, it might be possible to identify some subgroups that do not benefit from anthracycline-based chemotherapy despite positive nodes. FUNDING: National Cancer Institute (US National Institutes of Health).

Efficacy and quality-of-life data are related in a phase II trial of oral chemotherapy in previously untreated patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma.

PURPOSE: To evaluate quality of life (QOL) and tumor response after administration of an oral chemotherapy regimen in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventy-eight patients received a mean number of 5.8 cycles of therapy. QOL data were analyzed at baseline, after every two cycles of therapy, and at the time of treatment discontinuation. The Uniscale and the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 were both utilized. RESULTS: The confirmed response rate was 26% (95% confidence interval [CI], 17% to 37%). Median survival was 11.3 months (95% CI, 9.6 to 15.1 months). Global QOL scores were unchanged over the course of therapy by either tool. Only the physical function subscale score had worsened at the end of therapy. In an analysis of responding patients, significant and durable improvements in both global QOL measures as well as select subscale scores were observed. Diarrhea and physical function QOL scores had declined at the time of treatment discontinuation. Patients who did not respond to therapy had preserved QOL scores when they were evaluated after two cycles of therapy. CONCLUSION: This oral treatment strategy preserved QOL in treated patients. Global QOL measures as well as several QOL subscale scores significantly improved in patients with a documented response to therapy. The profile of improved QOL components indicated that patient well-being was related to tumor response in specific and perceivable ways. Nonresponding patients reported preserved QOL during the first two cycles of therapy. QOL analysis was feasible and informative in this moderately sized multicenter phase II trial.