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: To evaluate the risk of recurrence in women diagnosed with T1a and T1b, node-negative, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) -positive breast cancer., Methods: We reviewed 965 T1a,bN0M0 breast cancers diagnosed at our institution between 1990 and 2002. Dedicated breast pathologists confirmed HER2 positivity if 3+ by immunohistochemistry or if it had a ratio of 2.0 or greater by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy or trastuzumab were excluded. Kaplan-Meier product was used to calculate recurrence-free survival (RFS) and distant recurrence-free survival (DRFS). Cox proportional hazard models were fit to determine associations between HER2 status and survival after adjustment for patient and disease characteristics. Additionally, 350 breast cancers from two other institutions were used for validation., Results: Ten percent of patients had HER2-positive tumors. At a median follow-up of 74 months, there were 72 recurrences. The 5-year RFS rates were 77.1% and 93.7% in patients with HER2-positive and HER2-negative tumors, respectively (P < .001). The 5-year DRFS rates were 86.4% and 97.2% in patients with HER2-positive and HER2-negative tumors, respectively (P < .001). In multivariate analysis, patients with HER2-positive tumors had higher risks of recurrence (hazard ratio [HR], 2.68; 95% CI, 1.44 to 5.0; P = .002) and distant recurrence (HR, 5.3; 95% CI, 2.23 to 12.62; P < .001) than those with HER2-negative tumors. Patients with HER2-positive tumors had 5.09 times (95% CI, 2.56 to 10.14; P < .0001) the rate of recurrences and 7.81 times (95% CI, 3.17 to 19.22; P < .0001) the rate of distant recurrences at 5 years compared with patients who had hormone receptor-positive tumors., Conclusion: Patients with HER2-positive T1abN0M0 tumors have a significant risk of relapse and should be considered for systemic, anti-HER2, adjuvant therapy.

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: Adjuvant! is a standardized validated decision aid that projects outcomes in operable breast cancer based on classical clinicopathologic features and therapy. Genomic classifiers offer the potential to more accurately identify individuals who benefit from chemotherapy than clinicopathologic features., Patients and Methods: A sample of 465 patients with hormone receptor (HR) -positive breast cancer with zero to three positive axillary nodes who did (n = 99) or did not have recurrence after chemohormonal therapy had tumor tissue evaluated using a 21-gene assay. Histologic grade and HR expression were evaluated locally and in a central laboratory., Results: Recurrence Score (RS) was a highly significant predictor of recurrence, including node-negative and node-positive disease (P < .001 for both) and when adjusted for other clinical variables. RS also predicted recurrence more accurately than clinical variables when integrated by an algorithm modeled after Adjuvant! that was adjusted to 5-year outcomes. The 5-year recurrence rate was only 5% or less for the estimated 46% of patients who have a low RS (< 18)., Conclusion: The 21-gene assay was a more accurate predictor of relapse than standard clinical features for individual patients with HR-positive operable breast cancer treated with chemohormonal therapy and provides information that is complementary to features typically used in anatomic staging, such as tumor size and lymph node involvement. The 21-gene assay may be used to select low-risk patients for abbreviated chemotherapy regimens similar to those used in our study or high-risk patients for more aggressive regimens or clinical trials evaluating novel treatments.

Purpose: To update the recommendations for the use of tumor marker tests in the prevention, screening, treatment, and surveillance of breast cancer., Methods: For the 2007 update, an Update Committee composed of members from the full Panel was formed to complete the review and analysis of data published since 1999. Computerized literature searches of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Collaboration Library were performed. The Update Committee's literature review focused attention on available systematic reviews and meta-analyses of published tumor marker studies. In general, significant health outcomes (overall survival, disease-free survival, quality of life, lesser toxicity, and cost-effectiveness) were used for making recommendations. Recommendations and, Conclusions: Thirteen categories of breast tumor markers were considered, six of which were new for the guideline. The following categories showed evidence of clinical utility and were recommended for use in practice: CA 15-3, CA 27.29, carcinoembryonic antigen, estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, urokinase plasminogen activator, plasminogen activator inhibitor 1, and certain multiparameter gene expression assays. Not all applications for these markers were supported, however. The following categories demonstrated insufficient evidence to support routine use in clinical practice: DNA/ploidy by flow cytometry, p53, cathepsin D, cyclin E, proteomics, certain multiparameter assays, detection of bone marrow micrometastases, and circulating tumor cells.

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.

Purpose: Adjuvant! (www.adjuvantonline.com) is a web-based tool that predicts 10-year breast cancer outcomes with and without adjuvant systemic therapy, but it has not been independently validated., Methods: Using the British Columbia Breast Cancer Outcomes Unit (BCOU) database, demographic, pathologic, staging, and treatment data on 4,083 women diagnosed between 1989 and 1993 in British Columbia with T1-2, N0-1, M0 breast cancer were abstracted and entered into Adjuvant! to calculate predicted 10-year overall survival (OS), breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS), and event-free survival (EFS) for each patient. Individual BCOU observed outcomes at 10 years were independently determined. Predicted and observed outcomes were compared., Results: Across all 4,083 patients, 10-year predicted and observed outcomes were within 1% for OS, BCSS, and EFS (all P > .05). Predicted and observed outcomes were within 2% for most demographic, pathologic, and treatment-defined subgroups. Adjuvant! overestimated OS, BCSS, and EFS in women younger than age 35 years (predicted-observed = 8.6%, 9.6%, and 13.6%, respectively; all P < .001) or with lymphatic or vascular invasion (LVI; predicted-observed = 3.6%, 3.8%, and 4.2%, respectively; all P < .05); these two prognostic factors were not automatically incorporated within the Adjuvant! algorithm. After adjusting for the distribution of LVI, using the prognostic factor impact calculator in Adjuvant!, 10-year predicted and observed outcomes were no longer significantly different., Conclusion: Adjuvant! performed reliably. Patients younger than age 35 or with known additional adverse prognostic factors such as LVI require adjustment of risks to derive reliable predictions of prognosis without adjuvant systemic therapy and the absolute benefits of adjuvant systemic therapy.