Search

Purpose: Anthracyclines are frequently used in adjuvant treatment for early-stage breast cancer (ESBC). The purpose of this study was to evaluate cardiotoxic effects in the first five years after treatment with different anthracycline-based regimens., Methods: CCTG MA.21 (NCT000142) was a phase III trial in ESBC that compared cyclophosphamide (75 mg/m 2 ) orally for 14 days, epirubicin (60 mg/m 2 ) and fluorouracil, IV days one and eight (CEF) for six cycles; dose-dense epirubicin (120 mg/m 2 ) and cyclophosphamide, IV every 2 weeks for six cycles with concurrent G-CSF then paclitaxel every 2 weeks for four cycles (ddEC/T); doxorubicin (60 mg/m 2 ) and cyclophosphamide (600 mg/m 2 ) every 3 weeks for four cycles then four cycles q3 weekly paclitaxel (175 mg/m 2 ) (AC/T)., Endpoints: LVEF decline; LV function changes (heart failure), or Grade 3-4 cardiac ischemia/infarction. A competing risk analysis was performed with endpoints of cardiotoxicity or recurrence in first 5 years after completion of chemotherapy., Results: 2104 women were randomized. Compliance with cardiac LVEF assessments was 70% at 5 years in all arms. The 5-year cumulative risks of any cardiac event for CEF, ddECT, and AC/T were 22.3% (95%CI 18.9 to 25.7), 14.2% (95%CI 11.0 to 17.3), and 8.1% (95%CI 5.8 to 10.4), respectively, p < 0.0001. At 5 years, women in the ddEC/T and AC/T group had significantly lower risk of cardiotoxicity than those given CEF (HR 0.599 and 0.371, respectively). Most events were asymptomatic drop in LVEF., Conclusions: Asymptomatic changes in LVEF accounted for most of the cardiotoxicity. The majority of cardiac events occurred in year one although occurrence of cardiotoxicity over time highlights the need for improved risk stratification to guide cardiac surveillance strategies.

Background: Pelareorep, a serotype 3 reovirus, has demonstrated preclinical and early clinical activity in breast cancer and synergistic cytotoxic activity with microtubule targeting agents. This multicentre, randomized, phase II trial was undertaken to evaluate the efficacy and safety of adding pelareorep to paclitaxel for patients with metastatic breast cancer (mBC)., Methods: Following a safety run-in of 7 patients, 74 women with previously treated mBC were randomized either to paclitaxel 80 mg/m 2 intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks plus pelareorep 3 × 10 10 TCID 50 intravenously on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 every 4 weeks (Arm A) or to paclitaxel alone (Arm B). Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were objective response rate, overall survival (OS), circulating tumour cell counts, safety, and exploratory correlative analyses. All comparisons used a two-sided test at an alpha level of 20%. Survival analyses were adjusted for prior paclitaxel., Results: Final analysis was performed after a median follow-up of 29.5 months. Pelareorep was well tolerated. Patients in Arm A had more favourable baseline prognostic variables. Median adjusted PFS (Arm A vs B) was 3.78 mo vs 3.38 mo (HR 1.04, 80% CI 0.76-1.43, P = 0.87). There was no difference in response rate between arms (P = 0.87). Median OS (Arm A vs B) was 17.4 mo vs 10.4 mo (HR 0.65, 80% CI 0.46-0.91, P = 0.1)., Conclusions: This first, phase II, randomized study of pelareorep and paclitaxel in previously treated mBC did not show a difference in PFS (the primary endpoint) or RR. However, there was a significantly longer OS for the combination. Further exploration of this regimen in mBC may be of interest.

Perceptions among women with breast cancer about the relative importance of different potential chemotherapy side effects is not well understood. A survey was performed by women receiving chemotherapy for breast cancer. Grade I/II (mild to moderate) and III/IV (moderate to severe) descriptions of nine common chemotherapy side effects were assigned preference weights using the standard gamble technique. For each hypothetical side effect, patients could choose to stay in the respective side effect state or take a gamble between full health (probability p) or being dead (1 - p). For each side effect, p was varied until the patient was indifferent between these options. The survey also included questions about the importance of survival, slowing cancer growth, and quality of life. This analysis included 69 patients; mean age 54 years (range 35-84), representing all cancer stages. Standard gamble preferences were lowest (i.e., least preferred) for grade III/IV nausea/vomiting (0.621), indicating that patients would, on average, risk a 38 % chance of being dead to avoid having grade III/IV nausea/vomiting for the rest of their lives. The next least preferred side effects were grade III/IV diarrhea (0.677) and grade III/IV sensory neuropathy (0.694). Survival appeared more important than slowing cancer growth and maintaining quality of life across cancer stages. Nevertheless, patients with advanced disease placed less importance on survival (p = 0.09) and higher importance on quality of life (p = 0.05). These standard gamble utilities provide unique insights into chemotherapy toxicities from the patient perspective. Differences in the relative importance of overall survival and quality of life with treatment existed between patients with different stages of disease. These studies should be expanded as the data may also be used to calculate quality-adjusted life expectancy in cost-effectiveness evaluations of breast cancer chemotherapies.

Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) have been shown to reduce the risk of breast cancer recurrence and are widely used today as adjuvant therapy in women with early stage endocrine-responsive breast cancer. Aromatase inhibitors may be prescribed as initial hormonal therapy, sequentially following 2-3 years of tamoxifen, or as extended adjuvant therapy (following 5 years of tamoxifen). Aromatase inhibitors are generally well tolerated; however, certain side effects, particularly arthralgia/musculoskeletal symptoms and gynecologic effects, may result in poor adherence to treatment. Patients receiving adjuvant therapy with an AI should be counseled regarding possible side effects and the importance of completing treatment. Interventions to ameliorate side effects should be individualized based on symptoms, comorbid conditions, and pre-existing therapies. In addition, bone and cardiovascular health should be monitored during AI therapy. Prompt therapeutic management of common side effects associated with AIs may provide patients with the opportunity to receive the full benefit of their adjuvant hormonal treatment while minimizing toxicity.