Search

Purpose: MINDACT demonstrated that 46% of patients with early breast cancer at high clinical but low genomic risk on the basis of MammaPrint may safely avoid adjuvant chemotherapy. A second random assignment (R-C) compared docetaxel-capecitabine with an anthracycline-based regimen., Patients and Methods: R-C randomly assigned patients 1:1 between standard anthracycline-based regimens, with or without taxanes (control) and experimental docetaxel 75 mg/m 2 intravenously plus oral capecitabine 825 mg/m 2 two times per day for 14 days (DC) every 3 weeks for 6 cycles. The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS). Secondary end points included overall survival and safety., Results: Of 2,832 patients, 1,301 (45%) were randomly assigned, and 97% complied with R-C assignment. In the control arm, 29.6% only received taxanes (0.5% of N0 patients). DFS events (n = 148) were much less than required (n = 422) as a result of a lower-than-expected accrual and event rate. At 5 years of median follow-up, DFS was not different between DC (n = 652) and control (n = 649; 90.7% [95% CI, 88% to 92.8%] v 88.8% [95% CI, 85.9% to 91.1%]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.83 [95% CI, 0.60 to 1.15]; P = .26). Overall survival (HR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.54 to 1.53]) and DFS in the clinical high and genomic high-risk subgroup (86.1% v 88.1%; HR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.58 to 1.21]) were similar in both arms. DC led to more grade 1 neuropathy (27.1% v 11.2%) and more grade 2 hand/foot syndrome (28.5% v 3.3%) and diarrhea (13.7% v 5.8%). Serious cardiac events occurred in 9 patients (control, n = 4; DC, n = 5). Fifty-three patients developed second cancers (control, n = 32; DC, n = 21; leukemia: 2 v 1). Five treatment-related deaths occurred (control, 2 [0.3%]; DC, 3 [0.5%])., Conclusion: Although underpowered, this second randomization in MINDACT did not show any improvement in outcome or safety with the use of DC compared with anthracycline-based chemotherapy.

Purpose: According to the Institute of Medicine, high-quality cancer care should include effective communication between clinicians and patients about the risks and benefits, expected response, and impact on quality of life of a recommended therapy. In the delivery of oncology care, the barriers to and facilitators of communication about potential long-term and late effects, post-treatment expectations, and transition to survivorship care have not been fully defined., Patients and Methods: We collected qualitative data through semistructured interviews with medical oncologists and focus groups with breast cancer survivors and applied the Theoretical Domains Framework to systematically analyze and identify the factors that may influence oncologists' communication with patients with breast cancer about the long-term and late effects of adjuvant therapy., Results: Eight key informant interviews with medical oncologists and two focus groups with breast cancer survivors provided data. Both oncologists and patients perceived information on long-term effects as valuable in terms of improved clinical communication but had concerns about the feasibility of inclusion before treatment. They described the current approaches to communication of therapy risks as a brief laundry list that emphasized acute adverse effects and minimized more long-term issues. We describe the barriers to communication about potential long-term effects from the perspectives of both groups., Conclusion: This study provides insight into oncologists' communication with patients with breast cancer regarding the potential long-term and late effects of adjuvant chemotherapy and about setting realistic expectations for life after treatment. Opportunities to improve oncologists' communication about the potential toxicities of therapy, particularly regarding long-term and late effects, should be examined further.

Purpose: Myeloperoxidase (MPO) generates reactive oxygen species and also activates xenobiotics. In a rigorous clinical trial (Southwest Oncology Group SWOG-8897), we examined relationships between genotypes and disease-free survival (DFS) among women treated for breast cancer, as well as those who did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy., Patients and Methods: Patients were assigned to risk groups according to standard prognostic features; the low-risk group (n = 753 genotyped) received follow-up only, and the high-risk group (n = 401 genotyped) was randomly assigned to adjuvant cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) or cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and fluorouracil (CAF), with or without tamoxifen. DNA from archived normal lymph node tissue was genotyped, and Cox proportional hazard models were used to calculate DFS associated with MPO genotypes., Results: Among women in the treatment arm, those with MPO G alleles had more than a two-fold reduction in hazard of recurrence (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] for GA genotypes, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.99; HR for GG genotypes, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.77). Effects were greatest among women who were further randomly assigned to tamoxifen (HR for GA genotypes, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.12 to 0.69; HR for GG genotypes, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.45). There were no significant associations between genotypes and DFS among women in the untreated arm, and relationships between genotypes and DFS did not differ by CAF or CMF., Conclusion: These results, observed in two independent study populations, indicate that high-activity MPO genotypes are associated with better survival among women receiving cyclophosphamide-containing therapy, particularly when followed by tamoxifen therapy. MPO can be inhibited and/or upregulated by commonly used drugs; thus, our findings merit further investigation for optimization of therapeutics for breast cancer.

Purpose: We evaluated the efficacy of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) versus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and fluorouracil (CAF) in node-negative breast cancer patients with and without tamoxifen (TAM), overall and by hormone receptor (HR) status., Patients and Methods: Node-negative patients identified by tumor size (> 2 cm), negative HR, or high S-phase fraction (n = 2,690) were randomly assigned to CMF, CAF, CMF + TAM (CMFT), or CAF + TAM (CAFT). Cox regression evaluated overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) for CAF versus CMF and TAM versus no TAM separately. Two-sided CIs and one-sided P values for planned comparisons were calculated., Results: Ten-year estimates indicated that CAF was not significantly better than CMF (P = .13) for the primary outcome of DFS (77% v 75%; HR = 1.09; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.27). CAF had slightly better OS than CMF (85% v 82%, HR = 1.19 for CMF v CAF; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.43); values were statistically significant in the planned one-sided test (P = .03). Toxicity was greater with CAF and did not increase with TAM. Overall, TAM had no benefit (DFS, P = .16; OS, P = .37), but the TAM effect differed by HR groups. For HR-positive patients, TAM was beneficial (DFS, HR = 1.32 for no TAM v TAM; 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.61; P = .003; OS, HR = 1.26; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.61; P = .03), but not for HR-negative patients (DFS, HR = 0.81 for no TAM v TAM; 95% CI, 0.64 to 1.03; OS, HR = 0.79; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.05)., Conclusion: CAF did not improve DFS compared with CMF; there was a slight effect on OS. Given greater toxicity, we cannot conclude CAF to be superior to CMF. TAM is effective in HR-positive disease, but not in HR-negative disease.