Differential efficacy of three cycles of CMF followed by tamoxifen in patients with ER-positive and ER-negative tumors: Long-term follow up on IBCSG Trial IX

BackgroundThe benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in postmenopausal patients with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive lymph node-negative breast cancer is being reassessed.Patients and methodsAfter stratification by ER status, 1669 postmenopausal patients with operable lymph node-negative breast cancer were randomly assigned to three 28-day courses of ‘classical’ CMF (cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil) chemotherapy followed by tamoxifen for 57 months (CMF→tamoxifen) or to tamoxifen alone for 5 years.ResultsERs were positive in 81% of tumors. At a median follow-up of 13.1 years, patients with ER-positive breast cancers did not benefit from CMF [13-year disease-free survival (DFS) 64% CMF→tamoxifen, 66% tamoxifen; P = 0.99], whereas CMF substantially improved the prognosis of patients with ER-negative breast cancer (13-year DFS 73% versus 57%, P = 0.001). Similarly, breast cancer-free interval (BCFI) was identical in the ER-positive cohort but significantly improved by chemotherapy in the ER-negative cohort (13-year BCFI 80% versus 63%, P = 0.001). CMF had no influence on second nonbreast malignancies or deaths from other causes.ConclusionCMF is not beneficial in postmenopausal patients with node-negative ER-positive breast cancer but is highly effective within the ER-negative cohort. In the future, other markers of chemotherapy response may define a subset of patients with ER-positive tumors who may benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy.     

Survival analyses from the ZEBRA study. goserelin (Zoladex) versus CMF in premenopausal women with node-positive breast cancer

The Zoladex Early Breast Cancer Research Association (ZEBRA) trial compared the efficacy and tolerability of goserelin (Zoladex) with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil (CMF) chemotherapy in pre-/perimenopausal women with node-positive early breast cancer. The results of disease-free survival (DFS) analyses have already been published. Here we present an update including data on overall survival (OS) from the ZEBRA trial at a median follow-up of 7.3 years. In patients with oestrogen receptor (ER)-positive tumours, non-inferiority of goserelin versus CMF for OS was shown; goserelin was again shown to be equivalent to CMF for DFS. This updated analysis has demonstrated that the two treatments are also equivalent for distant disease-free survival (DDFS). In patients with ER-negative disease, goserelin was inferior to CMF for DFS, DDFS and OS. This follow-up analysis confirms the previously reported outcomes from the ZEBRA trial and demonstrates that goserelin offers an effective alternative to CMF chemotherapy for adjuvant therapy of premenopausal patients with ER-positive, node-positive early breast cancer.     

Goserelin versus cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil as adjuvant therapy in premenopausal patients with node-positive breast cancer: The Zoladex Early Breast Cancer Research Association Study.

PURPOSE: Current adjuvant therapies have improved survival for premenopausal patients with breast cancer but may have short-term toxic effects and long-term effects associated with premature menopause. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The Zoladex Early Breast Cancer Research Association study assessed the efficacy and tolerability of goserelin (3.6 mg every 28 days for 2 years; n = 817) versus cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) chemotherapy (six 28-day cycles; n = 823) for adjuvant treatment in premenopausal patients with node-positive breast cancer. RESULTS: Analysis was performed when 684 events had been achieved, and the median follow-up was 6 years. A significant interaction between treatment and estrogen receptor (ER) status was found (P =.0016). In ER-positive patients (approximately 74%), goserelin was equivalent to CMF for disease-free survival (DFS) (hazard ratio [HR], 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84 to 1.20). In ER-negative patients, goserelin was inferior to CMF for DFS (HR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.27 to 2.44). Amenorrhea occurred in more than 95% of goserelin patients by 6 months versus 58.6% of CMF patients. Menses returned in most goserelin patients after therapy stopped, whereas amenorrhea was generally permanent in CMF patients (22.6% v 76.9% amenorrheic at 3 years). Chemotherapy-related side effects such as nausea/vomiting, alopecia, and infection were higher with CMF than with goserelin during CMF treatment. Side effects related to estrogen suppression were initially higher with goserelin, but when goserelin treatment stopped, reduced to a level below that observed in the CMF group. CONCLUSION: Goserelin offers an effective, well-tolerated alternative to CMF in premenopausal patients with ER-positive and node-positive early breast cancer.     

PREPARE trial: a randomized phase III trial comparing preoperative,dose-dense,dose-intensified chemotherapy with epirubicin,paclitaxel, and CMF versus a standard-dosed epirubicin–cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel with or without darbepoetin alfa in primary breast cancer—outcome on prognosis

BackgroundThe objective of this study was to compare the effect of dose-intensified neoadjuvant chemotherapy with that of standard epirubicin plus cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel in combination with or without darbepoetin on survival in primary breast cancer.Patients and methodsA total of 733 patients received either four cycles of neoadjuvant epirubicin 90 mg/m² plus cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m² every 3 weeks followed by four cycles of paclitaxel 175 mg/m² every 3 weeks (EC→T), or three cycles of epirubicin 150 mg/m² every 2 weeks followed by three cycles of paclitaxel 225 mg/m² every 2 weeks followed by three cycles of combination chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (E_dd→T_dd→CMF). The patients were randomly assigned to receive darbepoetin or none. The primary objective was to demonstrate a superior disease-free survival (DFS) of E_dd→T_dd→CMF compared with EC→T.ResultsEstimated 3-year DFS was 75.8% with EC→T versus 78.8% with E_dd→T_dd→CMF [hazard ratio (HR) 1.14; P = 0.37] and overall survival (OS) 88.4% versus 91.5% (HR 1.26; P = 0.237). Three-year DFS was 74.3% with darbepoetin versus 80.0% without (HR 1.31; P = 0.061) and OS 88.0% versus 91.8% (HR 1.33; P = 0.139). Patients with a pathologically documented complete response [pathological complete response (pCR)] had a significantly better DFS compared with those without achieving a pCR (estimated 3-year DFS: 89.2% versus 74.9%; HR 2.27; P = 0.001).ConclusionNeoadjuvant dose-intensified chemotherapy compared with standard chemotherapy did not improve DFS, whereas the addition of darbepoetin might have detrimental effects on DFS.     

Adjuvant treatment for early breast cancer: the Ludwig breast cancer studies

The Ludwig Breast Cancer Study Group conducted four concomitant trials involving adjuvant chemotherapy and endocrine therapy. In Ludwig I, adjuvant combination chemotherapy was used with or without prednisone to treat premenopausal and perimenopausal women with metastases in 1-3 axillary lymph nodes. The impact of adding low-dose, continuous prednisone (7.5 mg/day) to an adjuvant, chemotherapy regimen of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and 5-fluorouracil (CMF) was investigated in a randomized trial of 491 premenopausal and perimenopausal patients with operable breast cancer and metastases in 1-3 axillary lymph nodes. As a consequence of lower hematologic toxicity, a significantly higher dose of CMF could be administered with added prednisone (P less than 0.0001). However, at the 4-year median follow-up, no significant improvement was observed in disease-free survival (DFS) (73% vs. 77%; P = 0.35) or overall survival (OS) (both 86%; P = 0.73). Induced amenorrhea was associated with a longer DFS for younger patients, those who received lower CMF doses, and those with tumors that were estrogen receptor (ER) positive. In Ludwig III, adjuvant therapy was administered to younger postmenopausal women in a study of chemotherapy plus endocrine therapy versus endocrine therapy alone versus mastectomy alone. In this randomized trial of 463 postmenopausal women 65 years of age or younger with axillary node metastases, treatment with the combination of CMF plus low-dose prednisone and tamoxifen (CMFp + T), was compared to endocrine therapy alone (p + T) or to no further treatment after total mastectomy and axillary clearance. At a median follow-up of 4 years, the DFS was 61% for the CMFp + T group, compared with 48% for the p + T group (P = 0.01) and 31% for the observation group (P less than 0.0001). The 4-year OS rates were not statistically different (76%, 67%, and 68%, respectively; P = 0.30). Treatment with CMFp + T reduced local, regional, and distant metastases and was equally effective in improving DFS in patients with ER-positive or ER-negative tumors. In Ludwig II, chemotherapy was given with or without oophorectomy in premenopausal and perimenopausal patients with metastases in 4 or more axillary nodes.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)     

Overall survival benefit for sequential doxorubicin–docetaxel compared with concurrent doxorubicin and docetaxel in node-positive breast cancer—8-year results of the Breast International Group 02-98 phase III trial

BackgroundIn women with node-positive breast cancer, the Breast International Group (BIG) 02-98 tested the incorporation of docetaxel (Taxotere) into doxorubicin (Adriamycin)-based chemotherapy, and compared sequential and concurrent docetaxel. At 5 years, there was a trend for improved disease-free survival (DFS) with docetaxel. We present results at 8-year median follow-up and exploratory analyses within biologically defined subtypes.MethodsPatients were randomly assigned to one of four treatments: (i) sequential control: doxorubicin (A) (75 mg/m²) × 4 →classical cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil (CMF); (ii) concurrent control: doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide (AC)(60/600 mg/m²) × 4 →CMF; (iii) sequential docetaxel: A (75 mg/m²) × 3 → docetaxel (T) (100 mg/m²) × 3 → CMF and (iv) concurrent docetaxel: AT(50/75 mg/m²) × 4 →CMF. The primary comparison evaluated docetaxel efficacy regardless of the schedule. Exploratory analyses were undertaken within biologically defined subtypes.ResultsTwo thousand eight hundred and eighty-seven patients were enrolled. After 93.4 months of median follow-up, there were 916 DFS events. For the primary comparison, there was no significant improvement in DFS from docetaxel [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.80–1.05, P = 0.187]. In secondary comparisons, sequential docetaxel significantly improved DFS compared with sequential control (HR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.67–0.99, P = 0.036), and significantly improved DFS (HR = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.72–0.99, P = 0.035) and overall survival (OS) (HR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.65–0.98, P = 0.028) compared with concurrent doxorubicin–docetaxel. Luminal-A disease had the best prognosis. HRs favored addition of sequential docetaxel in all subtypes, except luminal-A; but this observation was not statistically supported because of limited numbers.ConclusionWith further follow-up, the sequential docetaxel schedule resulted in significantly better OS than concurrent doxorubicin–docetaxel, and continued to show better DFS than sequential doxorubicin-based control.     

Quality of life in goserelin-treated versus cyclophosphamide + methotrexate + fluorouracil-treated premenopausal and perimenopausal patients with node-positive, early breast cancer: the Zoladex Early Breast Cancer Research Association Trialists Group.

PURPOSE: To compare quality of life (QoL) in premenopausal and perimenopausal patients with node-positive, early breast cancer treated with the endocrine agent goserelin (Zoladex; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Wilmington, DE) or cyclophosphamide + methotrexate + fluorouracil (CMF). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients from 86 centers worldwide were randomly assigned to receive either goserelin (3.6 mg every 28 days for 2 years; n = 514) or CMF (six 28-day cycles; n = 496), and were included in the QoL study. QoL was assessed using a self-administered patient questionnaire that consisted of 39 items from the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist, including dimensions evaluating physical and psychological symptom distress, activities of daily living, hormonal effects, and an assessment of overall QoL. RESULTS: Early benefits were noted during months 3 to 6 of treatment, for goserelin compared with CMF. Significant differences were found for changes in overall QoL (eg, 6.96 +/- 0.88 v 0.69 +/- 0.92 at 6 months; P <.0001) and for physical symptom distress, activity levels, and "effort to cope with illness" dimensions. At 1, 2, and 3 years, there were no significant differences in overall QoL or specific QoL dimensions. Scores for hormonal symptoms were worse with goserelin during the 2-year goserelin treatment period; however, this trend was reversed at 3 years. CONCLUSION: Goserelin offers improved overall QoL during the first 6 months of therapy compared with CMF chemotherapy in premenopausal and perimenopausal patients with early breast cancer. Coupled with equivalent efficacy in estrogen receptor-positive patients, these data support the use of goserelin as an alternative to CMF in premenopausal and perimenopausal patients with estrogen receptor-positive, node-positive early breast cancer.     

One year of adjuvant tamoxifen compared with chemotherapy and tamoxifen in postmenopausal patients with stage II breast cancer

PurposeWe report the long-term results of a randomised trial comparing tamoxifen with tamoxifen plus cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and fluorouracil (CMF) in postmenopausal high-risk breast cancer patients. In addition, we analyse the prognostic and predictive value of centrally assessed subtypes.MethodsPostmenopausal patients with breast cancer and positive nodes, deep invasion or size exceeding 5 cm were randomly assigned to 1 year of tamoxifen, or cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m², methotrexate 40 mg/m² and fluorouracil 600 mg/m² intravenously on day 1 every 4 weeks for nine cycles plus tamoxifen (CMFT). Tissue microarrays were constructed retrospectively and oestrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PgR), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), and proliferation-related Ki-67 antigen (Ki67) status were assessed.ResultsFrom October 1982 through March 1990 we randomised 1445 patients and 969 (67%) were eligible for the biomarker analysis. At 10-years 936 women had suffered a disease-free survival (DFS) event (tamoxifen, 495 events in 686 patients; CMFT, 441 events in 642 patients). The addition of CMF to tamoxifen significantly improved DFS (adjusted hazard ratio 0.82; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71–0.93; P = 0.003) but not overall survival (adjusted hazard ratio 0.95; 95% CI 0.85–1.08; P = 0.44). DFS was superior in Luminal A tumours (ER or PgR positive, HER2 negative and Ki67 ?14%) when compared to Luminal B or non-luminal (ER and PgR negative) tumours. There was no statistical evidence of heterogeneity by subtype in the benefit from CMF (P_interaction = 0.45).ConclusionCMF added to 1 year of tamoxifen reduces the risk of a DFS event. The benefit from CMF was not significantly different in Luminal A and B subtypes.     

Same gain, less pain: potential patient preferences for adjuvant treatment in premenopausal women with early breast cancer

The aim of this study was to determine the treatment preferences (adjuvant goserelin or cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and fluorouracil (CMF) chemotherapy) of healthy premenopausal women should they hypothetically develop oestrogen-receptor (ER) positive early breast cancer. Two hundred pre or peri-menopausal women read two scenarios describing goserelin or chemotherapy. Information included: How and where treatments were administered, side-effects, their likely persistence and impact on fertility. Women stated their unprompted initial and final preferences with reasons for the choices made. Respondents showed an overwhelming preference for goserelin. 156 (78%) women favoured goserelin, 22 (11%) chemotherapy and 22 (11%) remained undecided (P<0.0001). Primary reasons for preferring goserelin for were 105 (71%) avoidance of chemotherapy side-effects, especially hair loss, perceived convenience and less disruption to normal life 54 (36%). The minority who preferred chemotherapy, valued the treatment finishing more quickly. These results together with clinical trial data showing equivalence of goserelin with CMF regimens suggest that premenopausal women with ER-positive tumours should at least be offered the choice of either adjuvant hormone therapy or chemotherapy.     

A randomised factorial trial of sequential doxorubicin and CMF vs CMF and chemotherapy alone vs chemotherapy followed by goserelin plus tamoxifen as adjuvant treatment of node-positive breast cancer

The sequential doxorubicin --> CMF (CMF=cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, fluorouracil) regimen has never been compared to CMF in a randomised trial. The role of adding goserelin and tamoxifen after chemotherapy is unclear. In all, 466 premenopausal node-positive patients were randomised to: (a) CMF x 6 cycles (CMF); (b) doxorubicin x 4 cycles followed by CMF x 6 cycles (A --> CMF); (c) CMF x 6 cycles followed by goserelin plus tamoxifen x 2 years (CMF --> GT); and (d) doxorubicin x 4 cycles followed by CMF x 6 cycles followed by goserelin plus tamoxifen x 2 years (A --> CMF --> GT). The study used a 2 x 2 factorial experimental design to assess: (1) the effect of the chemotherapy regimens (CMF vs A --> CMF or arms a+c vs b+d) and (2) the effect of adding GT after chemotherapy (arms a+b vs c+d). At a median follow-up of 72 months, A --> CMF as compared to CMF significantly improved disease-free survival (DFS) with a multivariate hazard ratio (HR)=0.740 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.556-0.986; P=0.040) and produced a nonsignificant improvement of overall survival (OS) (HR=0.764; 95% CI: 0.489-1.193). The addition of GT after chemotherapy significantly improved DFS (HR=0.74; 95% CI: 0.555-0.987; P=0.040), with a nonsignificant improvement of OS (HR=0.84; 95% CI: 0.54-1.32). A --> CMF is superior to CMF. Adding GT after chemotherapy is beneficial for premenopausal node-positive patients.     

The effect of endocrine responsiveness on high-risk breast cancer treated with dose-intensive chemotherapy: results of International Breast Cancer Study Group Trial 15-95 after prolonged follow-up

BackgroundThe role of adjuvant dose-intensive chemotherapy and its efficacy according to baseline features has not yet been established.Patients and methodsThree hundred and forty-four patients were randomized to receive seven courses of standard-dose chemotherapy (SD-CT) or three cycles of dose-intensive epirubicin and cyclophosphamide (epirubicin 200 mg/m² plus cyclophosphamide 4 mg/m² with filgrastim and progenitor cell support). All patients were assigned tamoxifen at the completion of chemotherapy. The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS). This paper updates the results and explores patterns of recurrence according to predicting baseline features.ResultsAt 8.3-years median follow-up, patients assigned DI-EC had a significantly better DFS compared with those assigned SD-CT [8-year DFS percent 47% and 37%, respectively, hazard ratio (HR) 0.76; 95% confidence interval 0.58–1.00; P = 0.05]. Only patients with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive disease benefited from the DI-EC (HR 0.61; 95% confidence interval 0.39, 0.95; P = 0.03).ConclusionsAfter prolonged follow-up, DI-EC significantly improved DFS, but the effect was observed only in patients with ER-positive disease, leading to the hypothesis that efficacy of DI-EC may relate to its endocrine effects. Further studies designed to confirm the importance of endocrine responsiveness in patients treated with dose-intensive chemotherapy are encouraged.     

Dose-dense FEC followed by docetaxel versus docetaxel plus cyclophosphamide as adjuvant chemotherapy in women with HER2-negative,axillary lymph node-positive early breast cancer: a multicenter randomized study by the Hellenic Oncology Research Group (HORG)

BackgroundSequential administration of anthracycline and taxane is the current standard of care adjuvant regimen for node-positive early breast cancer. Due to long-term toxicity concerns, anthracycline-free regimens have been developed. We compared a sequential dose-dense anthracycline and taxane regimen with the anthracycline-free regimen of docetaxel and cyclophosphamide.Patients and methodsIn this randomized, non-inferiority, phase III trial, women with HER2-negative invasive breast cancer and at least one positive axillary lymph node were randomized to receive either epirubicin (75 mg/m²), 5-fluorouracil (500 mg/m²) and cyclophosphamide (500 mg/m²) every 2 weeks for four cycles, followed by four cycles of docetaxel (75 mg/m²) every 2 weeks with prophylactic G-CSF support (FEC → D) or docetaxel (75 mg/m²) and cyclophosphamide (600 mg/m²) every 21 days for six cycles (TC). The primary end point of the study was the 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate.ResultsSix hundred and fifty women were randomized to either FEC → D (n = 326) or TC (n = 324). After a median follow-up of 46 and 47 months, the 3-year DFS rate was 89.5% and 91.1% for the FEC → D and TC arm, respectively (hazard ratio = 1.147, 95% confidence interval 0.716–1.839, P = 0.568). Grade 3–4 neutropenia was higher in the TC arm (32.4% versus 10.5%, P = 0.0001). The incidence of neutropenic fever was low (<1%). Nausea, vomiting, hand–foot syndrome and fatigue (grade 3–4) were more common with FEC → D. Acute cardiotoxicity was rare (1 event in each group). There were no toxic deaths.ConclusionsThis trial did not clearly demonstrate that TC is non-inferior to dose-dense FEC → D. However, 3-year DFS rates were excellent in both arms for women with node-positive, HER2-negative early breast cancer.ClinicalTrials.govNCT01985724.     

Long-term outcomes after adjuvant treatment of sequential versus combination docetaxel with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide in node-positive breast cancer: BCIRG-005 randomized trial

BackgroundThe optimal regimen for adjuvant breast cancer chemotherapy is undefined. We compared sequential to concurrent combination of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide with docetaxel chemotherapy in women with node-positive non-metastatic breast cancer. We report the final, 10-year analysis of disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), and long-term safety.Patients and methodsA total of 3298 women with HER2 nonamplified breast cancer were randomized to doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide every 3 weeks for four cycles followed by docetaxel (AC → T) every 3 weeks for four cycles or docetaxel, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (TAC) every 3 weeks for six cycles. The patients received standard radiotherapy and endocrine therapy and were followed up for 10 years with annual clinical evaluation and mammography.ResultsThe 10-year DFS rates were 66.5% in the AC → T arm and 66.3% in the TAC arm (P = 0.749). OS was 79.9% in the AC → T arm and 78.9% in the TAC arm (P = 0.506). TAC was associated with higher rates of febrile neutropenia, although G-CSF primary prophylaxis greatly reduced this risk. AC → T was associated with a higher rate of myalgia, hand-foot syndrome, fluid retention, and sensory neuropathy.ConclusionThis 10-year analysis of the BCIRG-005 trial confirmed that the efficacy of TAC was not superior to AC → T in women with node-positive early breast cancer. The toxicity profiles differ between arms and were consistent with previous reports. The TAC regimen with G-CSF support provides shorter adjuvant treatment duration with less toxicity.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT00312208.     

Timing of CMF chemotherapy in combination with tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with breast cancer: role of endocrine responsiveness of the tumor.

BACKGROUND: Controversy persists about whether chemotherapy benefits all breast cancer patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG) trial VII, 1212 postmenopausal patients with node-positive disease were randomized to receive tamoxifen for 5 years or tamoxifen plus three concurrent courses of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil ('classical' CMF) chemotherapy, either early, delayed or both. In IBCSG trial IX, 1669 postmenopausal patients with node-negative disease were randomized to receive either tamoxifen alone or three courses of adjuvant classical CMF prior to tamoxifen. Results were assessed according to estrogen receptor (ER) content of the primary tumor. RESULTS: For patients with node-positive, ER-positive disease, adding CMF either early, delayed or both reduced the risk of relapse by 21% (P=0.06), 26% (P=0.02) and 25% (P=0.02), respectively, compared with tamoxifen alone. There was no difference in disease-free survival when CMF was given prior to tamoxifen in patients with node-negative, ER-positive tumors. CONCLUSIONS: CMF given concurrently (early, delayed or both) with tamoxifen was more effective than tamoxifen alone for patients with node-positive, endocrine-responsive breast cancer, supporting late administration of chemotherapy even after commencement of tamoxifen. In contrast, sequential CMF and tamoxifen for patients with node-negative, endocrine-responsive disease was ineffective.     

The effect of adjuvant prednisone combined with CMF on patterns of relapse and occurrence of second malignancies in patients with breast cancer

BACKGROUND:: The addition of low-dose prednisone (p) to the adjuvant regimenof cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil (CMF) allowedpatients to receive a larger dose of cytotoxics when comparedwith those on CMF alone. However, disease-free survival andoverall survival were similar for the two groups. To test thehypothesis that low-dose prednisone might influence the efficacyof the cytotoxic regimen used, the toxicity profiles of thetwo treatment regimens and the patterns of treatment failure(relapse, second malignancy, or death) were examined. PATIENTS AND METHODS:: 491 premenopausal and perimenopausal patients with one to threepositive axillary lymph nodes included in International (Ludwig)Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG) trial I from 1978 to 1981and randomized to receive CMFp or CMFp were analyzed for differencesin long-term outcome and toxic events. The 250 patients assignedto CMF and prednisone received on the average 12% more cytotoxicdrugs than those who received CMF alone. RESULTS:: The 13-year DFS for the CMFp group was 49% as compared to 52%for CMF alone, and the respective OS percents were 59% and 65%.Several toxic effects such as leukopenia, alopecia, mucositisand induced amenorrhea were reported at a similar incidencein the two treatment groups. Using cumulative incidence methodologyfor competing risks, we detected a statistically significantincrease in first relapse in the skeleton for the CMFp groupat 13 years follow-up with a relative risk (RR) of 2.06 [confidenceinterval (CI), 1.23 to 3.46; P = 0.004]. Patients with largertumors in the CMFp regimen were especially subject to this increasewith a RR for failure in the skeleton of 3.32 (95% CI, 1.57to 7.02; P = 0.0005). CMFp-treated patients also had a largerproportion of second malignancies (not breast cancer), withRR of 3.34(95% CI, 0.91 to 12.31; P = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS:: Low-dose continuous prednisone added to adjuvant CMF chemotherapyenabled the use of higher doses of cytotoxics. This increaseddose had no beneficial effect on treatment outcome, but wasassociated with an increased risk for bone relapses and a small,not statistically significant increased incidence of secondmalignancies. The effects of steroids, which are widely usedas antiemetics (oral or pulse injection) together with cytotoxics,should be investigated to identify their influence upon treatmentoutcome. adjuvant therapy, breast cancer, CMF, patterns of relapse, prednisone, secondary neoplasm     

The use of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists in early and advanced breast cancer in pre- and perimenopausal women

Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists, in particular goserelin ('Zoladex'), are increasingly being used for the treatment of breast cancer in women with functioning ovaries. They act by downregulating pituitary GnRH receptors, thereby suppressing the release of luteinising hormone (LH) and follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), which, in turn, reduce the main source of oestradiol production in the ovaries. GnRH agonists have been shown to be as effective therapeutically as surgical ovarian ablation in pre- and perimenopausal women with advanced breast cancer. The combination of a GnRH agonist such as goserelin with the peripheral oestrogen antagonist, tamoxifen, may be used to produce 'combined oestrogen blockade'. In advanced breast cancer, this regimen prolongs progression-free survival and increases both the response rate and duration relative to the use of a GnRH agonist alone. In patients with early breast cancer, the addition of goserelin to 'standard treatment' (i.e. surgery+/-tamoxifen, chemotherapy or radiotherapy) results in a significant benefit in recurrence-free survival and overall survival. This benefit was most apparent in patients with oestrogen receptor (ER) +ve tumours. Goserelin, when used either alone or in combination with tamoxifen as an adjuvant systemic therapy in women with ER +ve tumours, has been shown in clinical trials to produce recurrence-free survival rates equivalent to cytotoxic chemotherapy such as cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil (CMF). Evidence suggests that at least part of the effect of adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy in premenopausal women is produced by ovarian ablation. Endocrine therapy with goserelin or goserelin plus tamoxifen should now be considered a treatment option in the management of premenopausal women with ER +ve early breast cancer.     

PREPARE trial: a randomized phase III trial comparing preoperative,dose-dense,dose-intensified chemotherapy with epirubicin,paclitaxel and CMF versus a standard-dosed epirubicin/cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel ± darbepoetin alfa in primary breast cancer—results at the time of surgery

BackgroundPreoperative chemotherapy is a recommended treatment of both primary operable and locally advanced breast cancer. Strategies to improve efficacy include the use of anthracyclines, taxanes, and intensified dose with bone marrow support.Patients and methodsPatients received neoadjuvant epirubicin 90 mg/m² plus cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m² followed by paclitaxel 175 mg/m² (EC→T), each 3-weekly for four cycles (n = 370), or epirubicin 150 mg/m² followed by paclitaxel 225 mg/m² with pegfilgrastim followed by CMF (cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m², methotrexate 40 mg/m², fluorouracil 600 mg/m²) on days 1 and 8 (E_dd→T_dd→CMF), each 2-weekly and for three cycles (n = 363). Patients were randomly allocated to either simultaneous darbepoetin alfa (DA) (n = 356) or none (n = 377).ResultsPathological complete response (pCR) rate (breast) was higher with E_dd→T_dd→CMF, 18.7% versus 13.2% with EC→T; P = 0.043, ypT0/Tis; ypN0 was reported in 20.9% versus 14.3% respectively; P = 0.019. Patients with grade 3 tumors and negative hormone receptor status had a significantly higher pCR rate. Mean hemoglobin values maintained higher with DA (13.6 versus 12.6 g/dl). E_dd→T_dd→CMF regimen showed more grade 3–4 mucositis, sensory neuropathy, and neurological complaints. Thromboembolic events were more frequent on DA (3% versus 6%; P = 0.055).ConclusionDose-dense and -intensified neoadjuvant chemotherapy with E_dd→T_dd→CMF was potentially superior to EC→T in terms of pCR. Primary use of DA did not affect pCR.     

Less efficacy with alternating regimen as adjuvant chemotherapy in stage II node-positive breast cancer: results at 8 years (Pronacam 85).

A randomized trial to compare adjuvant treatment with an alternating regimen with conventional chemotherapy was performed. A total of 589 node-positive patients were included and stratified according to number of positive nodes (N1-3 and N > 4) and menopausal status. Premenopausal N1-3 patients were randomized to cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and fluorouracil (CMF) or CMF/4''-epirubicin, cyclophosphamide (EC), post-menopausal N1-3 patients to fluorouracil, 4 epirubicin, cyclophosphamide (FEC) or CMF/EC and pre- and post-menopausal patients with N > or = 4 to fluorouracil, 4'' epirubicin, cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, prednisone (FECMP) or CMF/EC. In premenopausal patients, CMF was superior to CMF/EC in terms of disease-free survival (DFS) (65% vs 45%, P = 0.0149) and survival (72.3% vs 50.2%, P = 0.0220) whereas, for N > or = 4 patients, differences between FECMP and CMF/EC did not achieve statistical significance (DFS 35% vs 26.2%; survival 50% vs 38.1%, P = NS). For post-menopausal patients, FEC was superior to CMF/EC in DFS (58.6% vs 36.8%, P = 0.0215) and survival (66.2% vs 46%, P = 0.0155). In post-menopausal patients with N > 4, differences favouring CMF/EC were significant in DFS (40.4% vs 22%, P = 0.0371) but not in survival (47.4% vs 32.2%, P = 0.1185). Alternating regimens did not offer better results in premenopausal and post-menopausal N1-3 patients. Results regarding post-menopausal N > 4 women require further confirmation.     

A Retrospective Analysis of Metronomic Cyclophosphamide,Methotrexate, and Fluorouracil (CMF) Versus Docetaxel and Cyclophosphamide (TC) as Adjuvant Treatment in Early Stage,Hormone Receptor Positive,HER2 Negative Breast Cancer

BackgroundAnthracycline and taxane-based doublets have largely replaced cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) as preferred regimens in the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer. Metronomic CMF is associated with improved tolerability over anthracycline or taxane-based regimens. Previously, there have been no direct comparisons between taxane-based regimens and CMF.Materials and MethodsWe performed a retrospective review of 98 breast cancer patients treated at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance from February 2015 through December 2018 that received either metronomic CMF or docetaxel and cyclophosphamide (TC) as adjuvant therapy for early-stage, hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 negative (HR+/HER2-) breast cancer. The primary outcome assessed was disease-free survival (DFS). Secondary outcomes included overall survival (OS), dose intensity, and adverse effects.ResultsWith an average follow-up of 35.9 and 28.2 months for CMF and TC, respectively, there was no significant difference in DFS or OS between the chemotherapy regimens. DFS at 3 years was 96.7% vs. 94.3% and OS 96.7% vs. 100% for CMF and TC, respectively. There were more dose delays in the CMF group, but on average, patients receiving either regimen achieved a dose intensity ≥85%. There was a trend towards increased hospitalization or emergency department utilization (23.1% vs. 10.6%) and Grade 4 toxicities (9.6% vs. 4.3%) with TC vs. CMF.ConclusionMetronomic CMF offers equivalent survival outcomes to TC and remains a viable option in the adjuvant treatment of HR+/HER2- breast cancer. There was a trend towards increased Grade 4 toxicities and hospitalizations with TC, suggesting that metronomic CMF may offer a more tolerable treatment option while maintaining excellent disease outcomes.     

Comparison of CVF (Cyclophosphamide+Vinorelbine+5-Fluorouracil) and CMF (Cyclophosphamide+Methotrexate+5-Fluorouracil) Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Early Breast Cancer

Purpose

Our study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of adjuvant cyclophosphamide/vinorelbine/5-fluorourail (CVF) chemotherapy as an alternative to cyclophosphamide/methotrexate/5-fluorouracil (CMF) chemotherapy for treating early breast cancer.

Methods

One hundred and forty-nine patients were randomly assigned to CMF or CVF adjuvant chemotherapy for treating their early stage breast cancer between September 2000 and December 2007. The disease-free survival (DFS), the overall survival (OS), and the toxicity profiles of both groups were compared.

Results

Sixty-seven patients underwent CMF chemotherapy whereas 82 patients underwent CVF chemotherapy. The DFS and OS were 88 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 76-101 months) and 94 months (95% CI, 83-104 months), respectively for the CMF group, and 97 months (95% CI, 93-101 months), and 101 months (95% CI, 98-104 months), respectively for the CVF group. However, those survival gains of the CVF group were not statistically significant (p-value=0.069 for the DFS and 0.99 for the OS). The CVF group showed a favorable toxicity profile in terms of the grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities as compared to that of the CMF group.

Conclusion

Clinical outcome of CVF chemotherapy was comparable to CMF with a favorable toxicity profiles. However, it is difficult to conclude the feasibility of CVF regimen because of small number of studied patients.