Optimal primary febrile neutropenia prophylaxis for patients receiving docetaxel-cyclophosphamide chemotherapy for breast cancer: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Due to the high rate of febrile neutropenia (FN) with docetaxel-cyclophosphamide (DC) chemotherapy, primary FN prophylaxis is recommended. However, the optimal choice of prophylaxis [i.e., granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSF) or antibiotics] is unknown. A systematic review was performed to address this knowledge gap. METHODS: Embase, Ovid Medline, Pubmed, the Cochrane database of systematic reviews, and Cochrane register of controlled trials were searched from 1946 to April 2016 for studies evaluating primary prophylactic FN treatments in breast cancer patients receiving DC chemotherapy. Outcome measures evaluated included: incidence of FN and treatment-related hospitalizations, chemotherapy dose reduction/delays/discontinuations, and adverse events. Screening and data collection were performed by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: Of 2105 identified records, 7 studies (n = 2535) met the pre-specified eligibility criteria. Seven additional studies (n = 621) were identified from prior systematic reviews. There were 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 2256) and 11 retrospective studies (n = 900). Study sample sizes ranged from 30 to 982 patients (median 99.5), evaluating pegfilgrastim (n = 1274), filgrastim (n = 1758), and oral ciprofloxacin (n = 108). Given the heterogeneity of patients and study design, a narrative synthesis of results was performed. Median FN rates with and without primary prophylaxis were 6.6 % (IQR 3.9-10.6 %) and 31.3 % (IQR 25-33 %), respectively. No FN-related deaths were reported. No RCT directly compared G-CSF with antibiotic interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Primary FN prophylaxis reduces the incidence of FN. Despite considerable cost and toxicity differences between G-CSF and antibiotics, there is insufficient data to make a recommendation of one strategy over another.

Combined targeting EGFR and SRC as a potential novel therapeutic approach for the treatment of triple negative breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) is an aggressive subtype of breast cancer with limited therapeutic options. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) has been shown to be over-expressed in TNBC and represents a rational treatment target. METHODS: We examined single agent and combination effects for afatinib and dasatinib in TNBC. We then determined IC50 and combination index values using Calcusyn. Functional analysis of single and combination treatments was performed using reverse phase protein array and cell cycle analysis. Finally, we determined the anticancer effects of the combination in vivo. RESULTS: A total of 14 TNBC cell lines responded to afatinib with IC50 values ranging from 0.008 to 5.0 µM. Three cell lines, belonging to the basal-like subtype of TNBC, were sensitive to afatinib. The addition of afatinib enhanced response to the five other targeted therapies in HCC1937 and HDQP1 cells. The combination of afatinib with dasatinib caused the greatest growth inhibition in both cell lines. The afatinib/dasatinib combination was synergistic and/or additive in 13/14 TNBC cell lines. Combined afatinib/dasatinib treatment induced G1 cell cycle arrest. Reverse phase protein array results showed the afatinib/dasatinib combination resulted in efficient inhibition of both pERK(T202/T204) and pAkt(S473) signalling in BT20 cells, which was associated with the greatest antiproliferative effects. High baseline levels of pSrc(Y416) and pMAPK(p38) correlated with sensitivity to afatinib, whereas low levels of B-cell lymphoma 2 (Bcl2) and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) correlated with synergistic growth inhibition by combined afatinib and dasatinib treatment. In vivo, the combination treatment inhibited tumour growth in a HCC1806 xenograft model. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate that afatinib combined with dasatinib has potential clinical activity in TNBC but warrants further preclinical investigation.

Primary Febrile Neutropenia Prophylaxis for Patients Who Receive FEC-D Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: Despite widespread use of fluorouracil, epirubicin, cyclophosphamide, docetaxel (FEC-D) chemotherapy in breast cancer, the optimal strategy for primary febrile neutropenia (FN) prophylaxis remains unknown. A systematic review was therefore performed. METHODS: Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and conference proceedings were searched from 1946 to April 2016 for trials that reported the effectiveness of primary FN prophylaxis with FEC-D chemotherapy. Outcome measures were incidence of FN; treatment-related hospitalizations; chemotherapy dose delays, reductions, and discontinuations; and adverse events from prophylaxis. RESULTS: Of 2,205 identified citations, eight studies (n = 1,250) met our eligibility criteria. Three additional studies (n = 293) were identified from a prior systematic review. Three randomized controlled trials (n = 576), one phase IV single-arm trial (n = 69), one prospective observational study (n = 37), and six retrospective studies (n = 861) were identified. Agents investigated were pegfilgrastim (n = 108), filgrastim (n = 1,119), and ciprofloxacin (n = 89). The heterogeneity of studies meant that a narrative synthesis of results was performed. Median FN rates for patients who received FEC-D with and without primary prophylaxis were 10.1% (interquartile range [IQR], 3.9% to 22.6%) and 23.9% (IQR, 9.2% to 27.3%), respectively. In the absence of primary prophylaxis, FN was more common during docetaxel than during FEC. Data from six studies showed a median rate of dose reductions and delays of 6.1% (IQR, 3.1% to 14.3%) and 19.3% (IQR, 10.5% to 32.8%), respectively, that occurred as a consequence of FN. Toxicity from prophylaxis itself was rarely reported. CONCLUSION: Primary FN prophylaxis is effective in patients who receive FEC-D chemotherapy. The paucity of prospective data makes optimal recommendations about the choice and timing of prophylaxis challenging.

Treatment choices for patients with invasive lobular breast cancer: a doctor survey.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Invasive lobular breast cancer (ILC) has distinct features that present challenges for management. We surveyed doctors regarding management approaches, opinions on quality of evidence supporting their practice, and future research needs. METHODS: An online questionnaire was developed and circulated to breast cancer surgical, radiation and medical oncologists. RESULTS: The questionnaire was completed by 88/428 doctors (20.6%); 22/56 (39.3%) surgeons, 21/64 (32.8%) radiation oncologists and 45/308 (14.6%) medical oncologists. The majority (65%) of surgeons were comfortable treating ILC patients using the same surgical management as patients with invasive ductal cancers (IDC). Furthermore, 25% would perform a similar surgery but would obtain larger gross margins. There was equipoise for radiation oncologists regarding whether or not ILC was an independent risk factor for local-regional recurrence after either breast-conserving surgery or mastectomy. Of those radiation oncologists who believe ILC is an independent risk factor for recurrence after mastectomy, 44.4% would offer radiation in the absence of usual indications. Medical oncologists approached systemic therapy for ILC patients similarly to those with comparable IDCs. Areas identified as most controversial and requiring future research were preoperative magnetic resonance imaging, radiotherapy post-mastectomy and the responsiveness of ILC to adjuvant chemotherapy compared with endocrine therapy. CONCLUSIONS: There is a variation in doctors' beliefs, management and opinions regarding the quality of evidence for the management of ILC. Clinical trials specifically assessing the management of ILC are required to guide clinical practice.