Search

Abstract: Adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer reduces the risks of recurrence and death in many subsets of patients. The quest for better regimens, defined as both more effective and less toxic has led to numerous clinical trials testing the taxanes in the adjuvant setting. These trials are generally positive but do not clearly identify a single best or ideal regimen for all patients. This paper reviews the available data in this area of clinical research. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Summary: Modern chemotherapy has diminished the risks of distant relapse and death in many subgroups of patients with early stage breast cancer. Although the initial trials relied on empirically designed regimens, studies are increasingly based on preclinical science and reflect the growing understanding of the molecular basis of cancer. Empiric clinical trials proved the worth of combination chemotherapy, the limited value of very long courses of treatment, and the benefits of adding first anthracyclines and then later taxanes. More recent trials have demonstrated the limits on empiric dose escalation and the benefits of optimized scheduling. Many trials are currently focused on novel targeted agents. Based on several decades of studies in thousands of women it is reasonable to consider a combination of chemotherapy agents for patients with hormone unresponsive or otherwise high-risk tumors. Anthracyclines and taxanes should be incorporated into the treatment plans of patients in the higher risk subsets and the specific regimens should be taken from the several randomized studies. When available, eligible patients should be enrolled on prospective clinical trials. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Big data represents a new opportunity to increase our understanding of cancer care as it is practiced globally and to improve it through the refinement of clinic guidelines and the identification of knowledge gaps. Here we review the historical approach to evidence development (randomized clinical trials), some of their limitations, and the complementary role that big data analytics may play. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Background: The 21-gene recurrence score assay is prognostic for women with node-negative, oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer treated with tamoxifen. A low recurrence score predicts little benefit of chemotherapy. For node-positive breast cancer, we investigated whether the recurrence score was prognostic in women treated with tamoxifen alone and whether it identified those who might not benefit from anthracycline-based chemotherapy, despite higher risks of recurrence. Methods: The phase 3 trial SWOG-8814 for postmenopausal women with node-positive, oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer showed that chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and fluorouracil (CAF) before tamoxifen (CAF-T) added survival benefit to treatment with tamoxifen alone. Optional tumour banking yielded specimens for determination of recurrence score by RT-PCR. In this retrospective analysis, we assessed the effect of recurrence score on disease-free survival by treatment group (tamoxifen vs CAF-T) using Cox regression, adjusting for number of positive nodes. Findings: There were 367 specimens (40% of the 927 patients in the tamoxifen and CAF-T groups) with sufficient RNA for analysis (tamoxifen, n=148; CAF-T, n=219). The recurrence score was prognostic in the tamoxifen-alone group (p=0·006; hazard ratio [HR] 2·64, 95% CI 1·33–5·27, for a 50-point difference in recurrence score). There was no benefit of CAF in patients with a low recurrence score (score <18; log-rank p=0·97; HR 1·02, 0·54–1·93), but an improvement in disease-free survival for those with a high recurrence score (score ≥31; log-rank p=0·033; HR 0·59, 0·35–1·01), after adjustment for number of positive nodes. The recurrence score by treatment interaction was significant in the first 5 years (p=0·029), with no additional prediction beyond 5 years (p=0·58), although the cumulative benefit remained at 10 years. Results were similar for overall survival and breast-cancer-specific survival. Interpretation: The recurrence score is prognostic for tamoxifen-treated patients with positive nodes and predicts significant benefit of CAF in tumours with a high recurrence score. A low recurrence score identifies women who might not benefit from anthracycline-based chemotherapy, despite positive nodes. Funding: National Cancer Institute and Genomic Health. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Summary: The neoadjuvant setting provides a unique opportunity to study the effect of systemic treatments on breast cancer biology and to identify clinically useful prognostic and predictive biomarkers. Discrepancies and inconsistencies in the use of definitions and endpoint assessments in this setting confound the analysis and interpretation of results across clinical trials and hinder research progress. This Review represents a joint effort of the Breast International Group and the National Cancer Institute-sponsored North American Breast Cancer Group to provide clinicians and researchers with a series of standardised definitions and endpoints that could be implemented in future neoadjuvant clinical trials. Definitions of the setting of interest and of survival endpoints are recommended, together with proposals for standard assessment of the response to treatment, use of functional and molecular imaging endpoints, and characterisation and selection of the population to treat. We expect that implementation of these recommendations will improve the conduct, reporting, and effectiveness of clinical trials and fully exploit the clinical and scientific potential of the neoadjuvant setting in breast cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]