Search

The GioTag study aimed to assess outcomes in real-world patients who received first-line afatinib followed by osimertinb.

BACKGROUND: Increasing the dose intensity of cytotoxic therapy by shortening the intervals between cycles, or by giving individual drugs sequentially at full dose rather than in lower-dose concurrent treatment schedules, might enhance efficacy. METHODS: To clarify the relative benefits and risks of dose-intense and standard-schedule chemotherapy in early breast cancer, we did an individual patient-level meta-analysis of trials comparing 2-weekly versus standard 3-weekly schedules, and of trials comparing sequential versus concurrent administration of anthracycline and taxane chemotherapy. The primary outcomes were recurrence and breast cancer mortality. Standard intention-to-treat log-rank analyses, stratified by age, nodal status, and trial, yielded dose-intense versus standard-schedule first-event rate ratios (RRs). FINDINGS: Individual patient data were provided for 26 of 33 relevant trials identified, comprising 37 298 (93%) of 40 070 women randomised. Most women were aged younger than 70 years and had node-positive disease. Total cytotoxic drug usage was broadly comparable in the two treatment arms; colony-stimulating factor was generally used in the more dose-intense arm. Combining data from all 26 trials, fewer breast cancer recurrences were seen with dose-intense than with standard-schedule chemotherapy (10-year recurrence risk 28·0% vs 31·4%; RR 0·86, 95% CI 0·82-0·89; p<0·0001). 10-year breast cancer mortality was similarly reduced (18·9% vs 21·3%; RR 0·87, 95% CI 0·83-0·92; p<0·0001), as was all-cause mortality (22·1% vs 24·8%; RR 0·87, 95% CI 0·83-0·91; p<0·0001). Death without recurrence was, if anything, lower with dose-intense than with standard-schedule chemotherapy (10-year risk 4·1% vs 4·6%; RR 0·88, 95% CI 0·78-0·99; p=0·034). Recurrence reductions were similar in the seven trials (n=10 004) that compared 2-weekly chemotherapy with the same chemotherapy given 3-weekly (10-year risk 24·0% vs 28·3%; RR 0·83, 95% CI 0·76-0·91; p<0·0001), in the six t

The present analysis, carried out in the context of a randomized phase III trial, confirms superior outcomes for breast cancer patients for whom chemotherapy induces pathological complete response (pCR) after adjusting for other important prognostic factors. In contrast, when tumours do not achieve pCR, patients have a higher risk of relapse. This effect is observed in all intrinsic subtypes and justifies the current interest in post-neoadjuvant trials

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Using surrogate end points for overall survival, such as disease-free survival, is increasingly common in randomized controlled trials. However, the definitions of several of these time-to-event (TTE) end points are imprecisely which limits interpretation and cross-trial comparisons. The estimation of treatment effects may be directly affected by the definitions of end points. The DATECAN initiative (Definition for the Assessment of Time-to-event Endpoints in CANcer trials) aims to provide recommendations for definitions of TTE end points. We report guidelines for randomized cancer clinical trials (RCTs) in breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A literature review was carried out to identify TTE end points (primary or secondary) reported in publications of randomized trials or guidelines. An international multidisciplinary panel of experts proposed recommendations for the definitions of these end points based on a validated consensus method that formalize the degree of agreement among experts. RESULTS: Recommended guidelines for the definitions of TTE end points commonly used in RCTs for breast cancer are provided for non-metastatic and metastatic settings. CONCLUSION: The use of standardized definitions should facilitate comparisons of trial results and improve the quality of trial design and reporting. These guidelines could be of particular interest to those involved in the design, conducting, reporting, or assessment of RCT.

BACKGROUND: Using surrogate end points for overall survival, such as disease-free survival, is increasingly common in randomized controlled trials. However, the definitions of several of these time-to-event (TTE) end points are imprecisely which limits interpretation and cross-trial comparisons. The estimation of treatment effects may be directly affected by the definitions of end points. The DATECAN initiative (Definition for the Assessment of Time-to-event Endpoints in CANcer trials) aims to provide recommendations for definitions of TTE end points. We report guidelines for randomized cancer clinical trials (RCTs) in breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A literature review was carried out to identify TTE end points (primary or secondary) reported in publications of randomized trials or guidelines. An international multidisciplinary panel of experts proposed recommendations for the definitions of these end points based on a validated consensus method that formalize the degree of agreement among experts. RESULTS: Recommended guidelines for the definitions of TTE end points commonly used in RCTs for breast cancer are provided for non-metastatic and metastatic settings. CONCLUSION: The use of standardized definitions should facilitate comparisons of trial results and improve the quality of trial design and reporting. These guidelines could be of particular interest to those involved in the design, conducting, reporting, or assessment of RCT.

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Using surrogate end points for overall survival, such as disease-free survival, is increasingly common in randomized controlled trials. However, the definitions of several of these time-to-event (TTE) end points are imprecisely which limits interpretation and cross-trial comparisons. The estimation of treatment effects may be directly affected by the definitions of end points. The DATECAN initiative (Definition for the Assessment of Time-to-event Endpoints in CANcer trials) aims to provide recommendations for definitions of TTE end points. We report guidelines for randomized cancer clinical trials (RCTs) in breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A literature review was carried out to identify TTE end points (primary or secondary) reported in publications of randomized trials or guidelines. An international multidisciplinary panel of experts proposed recommendations for the definitions of these end points based on a validated consensus method that formalize the degree of agreement among experts. RESULTS: Recommended guidelines for the definitions of TTE end points commonly used in RCTs for breast cancer are provided for non-metastatic and metastatic settings. CONCLUSION: The use of standardized definitions should facilitate comparisons of trial results and improve the quality of trial design and reporting. These guidelines could be of particular interest to those involved in the design, conducting, reporting, or assessment of RCT.

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Using surrogate end points for overall survival, such as disease-free survival, is increasingly common in randomized controlled trials. However, the definitions of several of these time-to-event (TTE) end points are imprecisely which limits interpretation and cross-trial comparisons. The estimation of treatment effects may be directly affected by the definitions of end points. The DATECAN initiative (Definition for the Assessment of Time-to-event Endpoints in CANcer trials) aims to provide recommendations for definitions of TTE end points. We report guidelines for randomized cancer clinical trials (RCTs) in breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A literature review was carried out to identify TTE end points (primary or secondary) reported in publications of randomized trials or guidelines. An international multidisciplinary panel of experts proposed recommendations for the definitions of these end points based on a validated consensus method that formalize the degree of agreement among experts. RESULTS: Recommended guidelines for the definitions of TTE end points commonly used in RCTs for breast cancer are provided for non-metastatic and metastatic settings. CONCLUSION: The use of standardized definitions should facilitate comparisons of trial results and improve the quality of trial design and reporting. These guidelines could be of particular interest to those involved in the design, conducting, reporting, or assessment of RCT.

Contains fulltext : 81383.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), PURPOSE: To assess the benefit from adjuvant systemic tamoxifen therapy in breast cancer risk groups identified by the previously established prognostic 76-gene signature. METHODS: In 300 lymph node-negative (LNN), estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer patients (136 treated with adjuvant tamoxifen, 164 having received no systemic adjuvant therapy), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) as a function of the 76-gene signature was determined in a multicenter fashion. RESULTS: In 136 tamoxifen-treated patients, the 76-gene signature identified a group of patients with a poor prognosis [hazard ratio (HR), 4.62; P = 0.0248]. These patients showed a 12.3% absolute benefit of tamoxifen in 10-year DMFS (HR, 0.52; P = 0.0318) compared with untreated high-risk patients. This represented a 71% increase in relative benefit compared with the 7.2% absolute benefit observed for all 300 patients without using the gene signature. In the low-risk group there was no significant 10-year DMFS benefit of tamoxifen. CONCLUSIONS: The 76-gene signature defines high-risk patients who benefit from adjuvant tamoxifen therapy. Although we did not study the value of chemotherapy in this study, low-risk patients identified by the 76-gene signature have a prognosis good enough that chemotherapy would be difficult to justify. The prognosis of these patients is sufficiently good, in fact, that a disease-free benefit for tamoxifen therapy is difficult to prove, though benefits in terms of loco-regional relapse and a reduction in risk for contralateral breast cancer might justify hormonal therapy in these patients.

Compared with treatment options for early-stage breast cancer, few data exist regarding the optimal use of chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (MBC). The choice of using a combination of cytotoxic chemotherapies vs sequential single agents is controversial. At the 6th European Breast Cancer Conference, the European School of Oncology Metastatic Breast Cancer Task Force convened an open debate on the relative benefits of combination vs sequential therapy. Based on the available data, the Task Force recommends sequential monotherapy as the preferred choice in advanced disease, in the absence of rapid clinical progression, life-threatening visceral metastases, or the need for rapid symptom and/or disease control. Patient- and disease-related factors should be used to choose between combination and sequential single-agent chemotherapy for MBC. Additional research is needed to determine the impact of therapy on patient-rated quality of life and to identify predictive factors that can be used to guide therapy., Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't, Review, SCOPUS: no.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Contains fulltext : 81383.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), PURPOSE: To assess the benefit from adjuvant systemic tamoxifen therapy in breast cancer risk groups identified by the previously established prognostic 76-gene signature. METHODS: In 300 lymph node-negative (LNN), estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer patients (136 treated with adjuvant tamoxifen, 164 having received no systemic adjuvant therapy), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) as a function of the 76-gene signature was determined in a multicenter fashion. RESULTS: In 136 tamoxifen-treated patients, the 76-gene signature identified a group of patients with a poor prognosis [hazard ratio (HR), 4.62; P = 0.0248]. These patients showed a 12.3% absolute benefit of tamoxifen in 10-year DMFS (HR, 0.52; P = 0.0318) compared with untreated high-risk patients. This represented a 71% increase in relative benefit compared with the 7.2% absolute benefit observed for all 300 patients without using the gene signature. In the low-risk group there was no significant 10-year DMFS benefit of tamoxifen. CONCLUSIONS: The 76-gene signature defines high-risk patients who benefit from adjuvant tamoxifen therapy. Although we did not study the value of chemotherapy in this study, low-risk patients identified by the 76-gene signature have a prognosis good enough that chemotherapy would be difficult to justify. The prognosis of these patients is sufficiently good, in fact, that a disease-free benefit for tamoxifen therapy is difficult to prove, though benefits in terms of loco-regional relapse and a reduction in risk for contralateral breast cancer might justify hormonal therapy in these patients.

Contains fulltext : 81383.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), PURPOSE: To assess the benefit from adjuvant systemic tamoxifen therapy in breast cancer risk groups identified by the previously established prognostic 76-gene signature. METHODS: In 300 lymph node-negative (LNN), estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer patients (136 treated with adjuvant tamoxifen, 164 having received no systemic adjuvant therapy), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) as a function of the 76-gene signature was determined in a multicenter fashion. RESULTS: In 136 tamoxifen-treated patients, the 76-gene signature identified a group of patients with a poor prognosis [hazard ratio (HR), 4.62; P = 0.0248]. These patients showed a 12.3% absolute benefit of tamoxifen in 10-year DMFS (HR, 0.52; P = 0.0318) compared with untreated high-risk patients. This represented a 71% increase in relative benefit compared with the 7.2% absolute benefit observed for all 300 patients without using the gene signature. In the low-risk group there was no significant 10-year DMFS benefit of tamoxifen. CONCLUSIONS: The 76-gene signature defines high-risk patients who benefit from adjuvant tamoxifen therapy. Although we did not study the value of chemotherapy in this study, low-risk patients identified by the 76-gene signature have a prognosis good enough that chemotherapy would be difficult to justify. The prognosis of these patients is sufficiently good, in fact, that a disease-free benefit for tamoxifen therapy is difficult to prove, though benefits in terms of loco-regional relapse and a reduction in risk for contralateral breast cancer might justify hormonal therapy in these patients.

Compared with treatment options for early-stage breast cancer, few data exist regarding the optimal use of chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (MBC). The choice of using a combination of cytotoxic chemotherapies vs sequential single agents is controversial. At the 6th European Breast Cancer Conference, the European School of Oncology Metastatic Breast Cancer Task Force convened an open debate on the relative benefits of combination vs sequential therapy. Based on the available data, the Task Force recommends sequential monotherapy as the preferred choice in advanced disease, in the absence of rapid clinical progression, life-threatening visceral metastases, or the need for rapid symptom and/or disease control. Patient- and disease-related factors should be used to choose between combination and sequential single-agent chemotherapy for MBC. Additional research is needed to determine the impact of therapy on patient-rated quality of life and to identify predictive factors that can be used to guide therapy., Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't, Review, SCOPUS: no.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Item does not contain fulltext, PURPOSE: This phase III randomized open-label clinical trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the steroidal aromatase inactivator exemestane versus the antiestrogen tamoxifen as first-line treatment for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) in postmenopausal women. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study was conducted at 81 centers and enrolled postmenopausal patients with measurable hormone-sensitive metastatic or locally advanced breast cancer. Prior adjuvant chemotherapy and/or tamoxifen were allowed. One previous chemotherapy regimen and no prior hormone therapy for advanced disease were permitted. Patients were randomly assigned to receive exemestane 25 mg or tamoxifen 20 mg orally once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred. RESULTS: A total of 371 patients enrolled at 79 sites (182 exemestane, 189 tamoxifen) were included in the analysis. Both treatments were generally well tolerated without major toxicity. Overall response rate was greater for exemestane than for tamoxifen treatment (46% v 31%; odds ratio = 1.85; 95% CI, 1.21 to 2.82; P = .005). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was longer with exemestane (9.9 months; 95% CI, 8.7 to 11.8 months) than with tamoxifen (5.8 months; 95% CI, 5.3 to 8.1 months). However, these early differences (Wilcoxon P = .028) did not translate to a longer-term benefit in PFS, the primary study end point (log-rank P = .121). There was also no difference in survival between both study arms. CONCLUSION: Exemestane is an effective and well-tolerated first-line hormonal treatment for postmenopausal women with MBC and offers significant early improvement in time to tumor progression when compared with tamoxifen.

PURPOSE: This phase III randomized open-label clinical trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the steroidal aromatase inactivator exemestane versus the antiestrogen tamoxifen as first-line treatment for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) in postmenopausal women. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study was conducted at 81 centers and enrolled postmenopausal patients with measurable hormone-sensitive metastatic or locally advanced breast cancer. Prior adjuvant chemotherapy and/or tamoxifen were allowed. One previous chemotherapy regimen and no prior hormone therapy for advanced disease were permitted. Patients were randomly assigned to receive exemestane 25 mg or tamoxifen 20 mg orally once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred. RESULTS: A total of 371 patients enrolled at 79 sites (182 exemestane, 189 tamoxifen) were included in the analysis. Both treatments were generally well tolerated without major toxicity. Overall response rate was greater for exemestane than for tamoxifen treatment (46% v 31%; odds ratio = 1.85; 95% CI, 1.21 to 2.82; P = .005). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was longer with exemestane (9.9 months; 95% CI, 8.7 to 11.8 months) than with tamoxifen (5.8 months; 95% CI, 5.3 to 8.1 months). However, these early differences (Wilcoxon P = .028) did not translate to a longer-term benefit in PFS, the primary study end point (log-rank P = .121). There was also no difference in survival between both study arms. CONCLUSION: Exemestane is an effective and well-tolerated first-line hormonal treatment for postmenopausal women with MBC and offers significant early improvement in time to tumor progression when compared with tamoxifen., Clinical Trial, Phase II, Clinical Trial, Phase III, Comparative Study, Journal Article, Multicenter Study, Randomized Controlled Trial, Research Support, N.I.H. Extramural, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't, SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

The aim of this randomized phase II study was to evaluate the anti-tumor activity and safety of capecitabine and vinorelbine in patients with metastatic breast cancer pretreated with taxanes and anthracyclines. We planned to randomize 72 patients to capecitabine 1250 mg/m(2) orally bid days 1-14 or vinorelbine 30 mg/m(2) i.v. days 1 and 8, both given every 3 weeks. The study was stopped due to poor accrual with 47 patients enrolled. Responses were seen in 2/23 patients treated with capecitabine (8.7%; 95% CI 1.1-29.0) and 3/24 patients treated with vinorelbine (12.5%; 95% CI 2.7-32.4). Median progression-free survival was 2.8 and 2.6 months, and median overall survival was 9.3 and 11.0 months, in the capecitabine and vinorelbine arms, respectively. There was more hematologic toxicity, neurotoxicity, and nausea/vomiting with vinorelbine and more diarrhea and hand-foot syndrome with capecitabine. The anti-tumor activity of capecitabine and vinorelbine seems to be comparable, but the toxicity profiles are different., Journal Article, Randomized Controlled Trial, Research Support, N.I.H. Extramural, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a severe consequence of myelosuppressive therapy. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer recently published guidelines on the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) to prevent FN in patients with malignant disease. In this review, the impact of these guidelines on breast cancer treatment is discussed. A brief summary of FN in breast cancer is given, and patient-related and treatment schedule-related risk factors for FN are reviewed for the adjuvant/neoadjuvant and metastatic disease settings. Primary G-CSF support is recommended if the overall FN risk is > or = 20%, or if a reduction in dose-intensity is associated with a poorer outcome. Any formulation of G-CSF is recommended. The utility of G-CSF in reducing the incidence of FN and enabling treatment regimens is discussed., Journal Article, Review, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Item does not contain fulltext, PURPOSE: This phase III randomized open-label clinical trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the steroidal aromatase inactivator exemestane versus the antiestrogen tamoxifen as first-line treatment for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) in postmenopausal women. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study was conducted at 81 centers and enrolled postmenopausal patients with measurable hormone-sensitive metastatic or locally advanced breast cancer. Prior adjuvant chemotherapy and/or tamoxifen were allowed. One previous chemotherapy regimen and no prior hormone therapy for advanced disease were permitted. Patients were randomly assigned to receive exemestane 25 mg or tamoxifen 20 mg orally once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred. RESULTS: A total of 371 patients enrolled at 79 sites (182 exemestane, 189 tamoxifen) were included in the analysis. Both treatments were generally well tolerated without major toxicity. Overall response rate was greater for exemestane than for tamoxifen treatment (46% v 31%; odds ratio = 1.85; 95% CI, 1.21 to 2.82; P = .005). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was longer with exemestane (9.9 months; 95% CI, 8.7 to 11.8 months) than with tamoxifen (5.8 months; 95% CI, 5.3 to 8.1 months). However, these early differences (Wilcoxon P = .028) did not translate to a longer-term benefit in PFS, the primary study end point (log-rank P = .121). There was also no difference in survival between both study arms. CONCLUSION: Exemestane is an effective and well-tolerated first-line hormonal treatment for postmenopausal women with MBC and offers significant early improvement in time to tumor progression when compared with tamoxifen.

The aim of this randomized phase II study was to evaluate the anti-tumor activity and safety of capecitabine and vinorelbine in patients with metastatic breast cancer pretreated with taxanes and anthracyclines. We planned to randomize 72 patients to capecitabine 1250 mg/m(2) orally bid days 1-14 or vinorelbine 30 mg/m(2) i.v. days 1 and 8, both given every 3 weeks. The study was stopped due to poor accrual with 47 patients enrolled. Responses were seen in 2/23 patients treated with capecitabine (8.7%; 95% CI 1.1-29.0) and 3/24 patients treated with vinorelbine (12.5%; 95% CI 2.7-32.4). Median progression-free survival was 2.8 and 2.6 months, and median overall survival was 9.3 and 11.0 months, in the capecitabine and vinorelbine arms, respectively. There was more hematologic toxicity, neurotoxicity, and nausea/vomiting with vinorelbine and more diarrhea and hand-foot syndrome with capecitabine. The anti-tumor activity of capecitabine and vinorelbine seems to be comparable, but the toxicity profiles are different., Journal Article, Randomized Controlled Trial, Research Support, N.I.H. Extramural, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a severe consequence of myelosuppressive therapy. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer recently published guidelines on the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) to prevent FN in patients with malignant disease. In this review, the impact of these guidelines on breast cancer treatment is discussed. A brief summary of FN in breast cancer is given, and patient-related and treatment schedule-related risk factors for FN are reviewed for the adjuvant/neoadjuvant and metastatic disease settings. Primary G-CSF support is recommended if the overall FN risk is > or = 20%, or if a reduction in dose-intensity is associated with a poorer outcome. Any formulation of G-CSF is recommended. The utility of G-CSF in reducing the incidence of FN and enabling treatment regimens is discussed., Journal Article, Review, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

PURPOSE: This phase III randomized open-label clinical trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the steroidal aromatase inactivator exemestane versus the antiestrogen tamoxifen as first-line treatment for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) in postmenopausal women. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study was conducted at 81 centers and enrolled postmenopausal patients with measurable hormone-sensitive metastatic or locally advanced breast cancer. Prior adjuvant chemotherapy and/or tamoxifen were allowed. One previous chemotherapy regimen and no prior hormone therapy for advanced disease were permitted. Patients were randomly assigned to receive exemestane 25 mg or tamoxifen 20 mg orally once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred. RESULTS: A total of 371 patients enrolled at 79 sites (182 exemestane, 189 tamoxifen) were included in the analysis. Both treatments were generally well tolerated without major toxicity. Overall response rate was greater for exemestane than for tamoxifen treatment (46% v 31%; odds ratio = 1.85; 95% CI, 1.21 to 2.82; P = .005). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was longer with exemestane (9.9 months; 95% CI, 8.7 to 11.8 months) than with tamoxifen (5.8 months; 95% CI, 5.3 to 8.1 months). However, these early differences (Wilcoxon P = .028) did not translate to a longer-term benefit in PFS, the primary study end point (log-rank P = .121). There was also no difference in survival between both study arms. CONCLUSION: Exemestane is an effective and well-tolerated first-line hormonal treatment for postmenopausal women with MBC and offers significant early improvement in time to tumor progression when compared with tamoxifen., Clinical Trial, Phase II, Clinical Trial, Phase III, Comparative Study, Journal Article, Multicenter Study, Randomized Controlled Trial, Research Support, N.I.H. Extramural, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't, SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Contains fulltext : 49988.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), PURPOSE: We previously identified in a single-center study a 76-gene prognostic signature for lymph node-negative (LNN) breast cancer patients. The aim of this study was to validate this gene signature in an independent more diverse population of LNN patients from multiple institutions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using custom-designed DNA chips we analyzed the expression of the 76 genes in RNA of frozen tumor samples from 180 LNN patients who did not receive adjuvant systemic treatment. RESULTS: In this independent validation, the 76-gene signature was highly informative in identifying patients with distant metastasis within 5 years (hazard ratio, [HR], 7.41; 95% CI, 2.63 to 20.9), even when corrected for traditional prognostic factors in multivariate analysis (HR, 11.36; 95% CI, 2.67 to 48.4). The actuarial 5- and 10-year distant metastasis-free survival were 96% (95% CI, 89% to 99%) and 94% (95% CI, 83% to 98%), respectively, for the good profile group and 74% (95% CI, 64% to 81%) and 65% (53% to 74%), respectively for the poor profile group. The sensitivity for 5-yr distant metastasis-free survival was 90%, and the specificity was 50%. The positive and negative predictive values were 38% (95% CI, 29% to 47%) and 94% (95% CI, 86% to 97%), respectively. The 76-gene signature was confirmed as a strong prognostic factor in subgroups of estrogen receptor-positive patients, pre- and postmenopausal patients, and patients with tumor sizes 20 mm or smaller. The subgroup of patients with estrogen receptor-negative tumors was considered too small to perform a separate analysis. CONCLUSION: Our data provide a strong methodologic and clinical multicenter validation of the predefined prognostic 76-gene signature in LNN breast cancer patients.

Contains fulltext : 49988.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), PURPOSE: We previously identified in a single-center study a 76-gene prognostic signature for lymph node-negative (LNN) breast cancer patients. The aim of this study was to validate this gene signature in an independent more diverse population of LNN patients from multiple institutions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using custom-designed DNA chips we analyzed the expression of the 76 genes in RNA of frozen tumor samples from 180 LNN patients who did not receive adjuvant systemic treatment. RESULTS: In this independent validation, the 76-gene signature was highly informative in identifying patients with distant metastasis within 5 years (hazard ratio, [HR], 7.41; 95% CI, 2.63 to 20.9), even when corrected for traditional prognostic factors in multivariate analysis (HR, 11.36; 95% CI, 2.67 to 48.4). The actuarial 5- and 10-year distant metastasis-free survival were 96% (95% CI, 89% to 99%) and 94% (95% CI, 83% to 98%), respectively, for the good profile group and 74% (95% CI, 64% to 81%) and 65% (53% to 74%), respectively for the poor profile group. The sensitivity for 5-yr distant metastasis-free survival was 90%, and the specificity was 50%. The positive and negative predictive values were 38% (95% CI, 29% to 47%) and 94% (95% CI, 86% to 97%), respectively. The 76-gene signature was confirmed as a strong prognostic factor in subgroups of estrogen receptor-positive patients, pre- and postmenopausal patients, and patients with tumor sizes 20 mm or smaller. The subgroup of patients with estrogen receptor-negative tumors was considered too small to perform a separate analysis. CONCLUSION: Our data provide a strong methodologic and clinical multicenter validation of the predefined prognostic 76-gene signature in LNN breast cancer patients.

Contains fulltext : 49988.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), PURPOSE: We previously identified in a single-center study a 76-gene prognostic signature for lymph node-negative (LNN) breast cancer patients. The aim of this study was to validate this gene signature in an independent more diverse population of LNN patients from multiple institutions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using custom-designed DNA chips we analyzed the expression of the 76 genes in RNA of frozen tumor samples from 180 LNN patients who did not receive adjuvant systemic treatment. RESULTS: In this independent validation, the 76-gene signature was highly informative in identifying patients with distant metastasis within 5 years (hazard ratio, [HR], 7.41; 95% CI, 2.63 to 20.9), even when corrected for traditional prognostic factors in multivariate analysis (HR, 11.36; 95% CI, 2.67 to 48.4). The actuarial 5- and 10-year distant metastasis-free survival were 96% (95% CI, 89% to 99%) and 94% (95% CI, 83% to 98%), respectively, for the good profile group and 74% (95% CI, 64% to 81%) and 65% (53% to 74%), respectively for the poor profile group. The sensitivity for 5-yr distant metastasis-free survival was 90%, and the specificity was 50%. The positive and negative predictive values were 38% (95% CI, 29% to 47%) and 94% (95% CI, 86% to 97%), respectively. The 76-gene signature was confirmed as a strong prognostic factor in subgroups of estrogen receptor-positive patients, pre- and postmenopausal patients, and patients with tumor sizes 20 mm or smaller. The subgroup of patients with estrogen receptor-negative tumors was considered too small to perform a separate analysis. CONCLUSION: Our data provide a strong methodologic and clinical multicenter validation of the predefined prognostic 76-gene signature in LNN breast cancer patients.

The 2003 St. Gallen consensus panel divided the many available adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) regimens into those with "standard efficacy" (ACx4, CMFx6) and those with "superior efficacy" (FA(E)Cx6, CA(E)Fx6, A(E)-->CMF, TACx6, ACx4--> paclitaxel (P)x4 or docetaxel (D)x4) but also greater complexity, toxicity and cost. This paper will summarize the latest information on long-term side effects of the "superior" regimens and 5-year benefits reported in taxane trials, including those of a "new" sequential regimen, FECx3--> docetaxelx3. Rapidly expanding evidence of marked heterogeneity in the magnitude of CT benefits according to the tumour oestrogen receptor (ER) status, a claim made for many years by IBCSG investigators, will be reviewed; it will lead to the conclusion that a revolution needs to take place in the way oncologists think about the CT added value and design adjuvant clinical trials. The conclusions proposed to the 2005 St. Gallen consensus panel are that: adequately dosed anthracycline-based CT regimens remain an acceptable standard for many women; a lower threshold for using taxanes in sequence or combination with anthracyclines (A) is justified in the presence of an ER-negative or low-ER tumour status, other aggressive biologic features (such as HER-2 overexpression), fear about A-induced cardiotoxicity; no recommendation can yet be made as far as the optimal taxane-A regimen, the best taxane or the best taxane schedule., Journal Article, Review, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

The 2003 St. Gallen consensus panel divided the many available adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) regimens into those with "standard efficacy" (ACx4, CMFx6) and those with "superior efficacy" (FA(E)Cx6, CA(E)Fx6, A(E)-->CMF, TACx6, ACx4--> paclitaxel (P)x4 or docetaxel (D)x4) but also greater complexity, toxicity and cost. This paper will summarize the latest information on long-term side effects of the "superior" regimens and 5-year benefits reported in taxane trials, including those of a "new" sequential regimen, FECx3--> docetaxelx3. Rapidly expanding evidence of marked heterogeneity in the magnitude of CT benefits according to the tumour oestrogen receptor (ER) status, a claim made for many years by IBCSG investigators, will be reviewed; it will lead to the conclusion that a revolution needs to take place in the way oncologists think about the CT added value and design adjuvant clinical trials. The conclusions proposed to the 2005 St. Gallen consensus panel are that: adequately dosed anthracycline-based CT regimens remain an acceptable standard for many women; a lower threshold for using taxanes in sequence or combination with anthracyclines (A) is justified in the presence of an ER-negative or low-ER tumour status, other aggressive biologic features (such as HER-2 overexpression), fear about A-induced cardiotoxicity; no recommendation can yet be made as far as the optimal taxane-A regimen, the best taxane or the best taxane schedule., Journal Article, Review, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Item does not contain fulltext

BACKGROUND: The impact of aromatase inhibitors (AIs) on non-cancer-related outcomes, which are known to be affected by oestrogens, has become increasingly important in postmenopausal women with hormone-dependent breast cancer. So far, data related to the effect of AIs on lipid profile in postmenopausal women is scarce. This study, as a companion substudy of an EORTC phase II trial (10951), evaluated the impact of exemestane, a steroidal aromatase inactivator, on the lipid profile of postmenopausal metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The EORTC trial 10951 randomised 122 postmenopausal breast cancer patients to exemestane (E) 25 mg (n = 62) or tamoxifen (T) 20 mg (n = 60) once daily as a first-line treatment in the metastatic setting. Exemestane showed promising results in all the primary efficacy end points of the trial (response rate, clinical benefit rate and response duration), and it was well tolerated with low incidence of serious toxicity. As a secondary end point of this phase II trial, serum triglycerides (TRG), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL), total cholesterol (TC), lipoprotein a (Lip a), and apolipoproteins (Apo) B and A1 were measured at baseline and while on therapy (at 8, 24 and 48 weeks) to assess the impact of exemestane and tamoxifen on serum lipid profiles. Of the 122 randomised patients, those who had baseline and at least one other lipid assessment are included in the present analysis. The patients who received concomitant drugs that could affect lipid profile are included only if these drugs were administered throughout the study treatment. Increase or decrease in lipid parameters within 20% of baseline were considered as non-significant and thus unchanged. RESULTS: Seventy-two patients (36 in both arms) were included in the statistical analysis. The majority of patients had abnormal TC and normal TRG, HDL, Apo A1, Apo B and Lip a levels at baseline. Neither exemestane nor tamoxifen had adverse effects on TC, Clinical Trial, Clinical Trial, Phase II, Journal Article, Multicenter Study, Randomized Controlled Trial, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

PURPOSE: The purpose of this research was to evaluate whether baseline health-related quality of life (HRQOL) parameters are prognostic factors for survival in locally advanced breast cancer patients. Although the literature highlights the important role of HRQOL parameters in predicting survival in advanced metastatic disease, little evidence exists for earlier stages. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The overall sample consisted of 448 patients randomly assigned to receive cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and fluorouracil versus epirubicin, cyclophosphamide, and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. Patients were enrolled in 12 countries. HRQOL baseline scores were assessed using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30. The Cox proportional hazards regression model was used for both univariate and multivariate analyses of survival. In addition, a bootstrap resampling technique was used to assess the stability of the outcomes. Bootstrap results were then applied for model averaging purposes as a means to account for the observed model selection uncertainty. RESULTS: The final multivariate model retained inflammatory breast cancer (T4d) as the only factor predicting overall survival (OS) with a hazard ratio of 1.375 (95% CI, 1.027 to 1.840; P =.03). The presence of inflammatory breast cancer lowers the median survival time from 6.6 to 4.2 years (36% reduction). None of the preselected HRQOL variables were prognostic for OS or disease-free survival, in either the univariate or multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that baseline HRQOL parameters have no prognostic value in a nonmetastatic breast cancer population., Clinical Trial, Clinical Trial, Phase III, Journal Article, Multicenter Study, Randomized Controlled Trial, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't, Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S., info:eu-repo/semantics/published

The potential value of baseline health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) and clinical factors in predicting prognosis was examined using data from an international randomised phase III trial which compared doxorubicin and paclitaxel with doxorubicin and cylophosphamide as first line chemotherapy in 275 women with metastatic breast cancer. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 and the related breast module (QLQ-BR23) were used to assess baseline HRQOL data. The Cox proportional-hazards regression model was used for both univariate and multivariate analyses of survival. In the univariate analyses, performance status (P<0.001) and number of sites involved (P=0.001) were the most important clinical prognostic factors. The HRQOL variables at baseline most strongly associated with longer survival were better appetite, physical and role functioning, as well as less fatigue (P<0.001). The final multivariate model retained performance status (P<0.001) and appetite loss (P=0.005) as the variables best predicting survival. Substantial loss of appetite was the only independent HRQOL factor predicting poor survival and was strongly correlated (/r/>0.5) with fatigue, role and physical functioning. In addition to known clinical factors, appetite loss appears to be a significant prognostic factor for survival in women with metastatic breast cancer. However, the mechanism underlying this association remains to be precisely defined in future studies., Clinical Trial, Clinical Trial, Phase III, Journal Article, Multicenter Study, Randomized Controlled Trial, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

PURPOSE: To compare health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients with metastatic breast cancer receiving the combination of doxorubicin and paclitaxel (AT) or doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) as first-line chemotherapy treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients (n = 275) with anthracycline-naive measurable metastatic breast cancer were randomly assigned to AT (doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) as an intravenous bolus plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) as a 3-hour infusion) or AC (doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) plus cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2)) every 3 weeks for a maximum of six cycles. Dose escalation of paclitaxel (200 mg/m(2)) and cyclophosphamide (750 mg/m(2)) was planned at cycle 2 to reach equivalent myelosuppression in the two groups. HRQOL was assessed with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 and the EORTC Breast Module at baseline and the start of cycles 2, 4, and 6, and 3 months after the last cycle. RESULTS: Seventy-nine percent of the patients (n = 219) completed a baseline measure. However, there were no statistically significant differences in HRQOL between the two treatment groups. In both groups, selected aspects of HRQOL were impaired over time, with increased fatigue, although some clinically significant improvements in emotional functioning were seen, as well as a reduction in pain over time. Overall, global quality of life was maintained in both treatment groups. CONCLUSION: This information is important when advising women patients of the expected HRQOL consequences of treatment regimens and should help clinicians and their patients make informed treatment decisions., Clinical Trial, Journal Article, Multicenter Study, Randomized Controlled Trial, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Item does not contain fulltext

Item does not contain fulltext

PURPOSE: To compare health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients with metastatic breast cancer receiving the combination of doxorubicin and paclitaxel (AT) or doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) as first-line chemotherapy treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients (n = 275) with anthracycline-naive measurable metastatic breast cancer were randomly assigned to AT (doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) as an intravenous bolus plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) as a 3-hour infusion) or AC (doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) plus cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2)) every 3 weeks for a maximum of six cycles. Dose escalation of paclitaxel (200 mg/m(2)) and cyclophosphamide (750 mg/m(2)) was planned at cycle 2 to reach equivalent myelosuppression in the two groups. HRQOL was assessed with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 and the EORTC Breast Module at baseline and the start of cycles 2, 4, and 6, and 3 months after the last cycle. RESULTS: Seventy-nine percent of the patients (n = 219) completed a baseline measure. However, there were no statistically significant differences in HRQOL between the two treatment groups. In both groups, selected aspects of HRQOL were impaired over time, with increased fatigue, although some clinically significant improvements in emotional functioning were seen, as well as a reduction in pain over time. Overall, global quality of life was maintained in both treatment groups. CONCLUSION: This information is important when advising women patients of the expected HRQOL consequences of treatment regimens and should help clinicians and their patients make informed treatment decisions., Clinical Trial, Journal Article, Multicenter Study, Randomized Controlled Trial, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

BACKGROUND: The impact of aromatase inhibitors (AIs) on non-cancer-related outcomes, which are known to be affected by oestrogens, has become increasingly important in postmenopausal women with hormone-dependent breast cancer. So far, data related to the effect of AIs on lipid profile in postmenopausal women is scarce. This study, as a companion substudy of an EORTC phase II trial (10951), evaluated the impact of exemestane, a steroidal aromatase inactivator, on the lipid profile of postmenopausal metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The EORTC trial 10951 randomised 122 postmenopausal breast cancer patients to exemestane (E) 25 mg (n = 62) or tamoxifen (T) 20 mg (n = 60) once daily as a first-line treatment in the metastatic setting. Exemestane showed promising results in all the primary efficacy end points of the trial (response rate, clinical benefit rate and response duration), and it was well tolerated with low incidence of serious toxicity. As a secondary end point of this phase II trial, serum triglycerides (TRG), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL), total cholesterol (TC), lipoprotein a (Lip a), and apolipoproteins (Apo) B and A1 were measured at baseline and while on therapy (at 8, 24 and 48 weeks) to assess the impact of exemestane and tamoxifen on serum lipid profiles. Of the 122 randomised patients, those who had baseline and at least one other lipid assessment are included in the present analysis. The patients who received concomitant drugs that could affect lipid profile are included only if these drugs were administered throughout the study treatment. Increase or decrease in lipid parameters within 20% of baseline were considered as non-significant and thus unchanged. RESULTS: Seventy-two patients (36 in both arms) were included in the statistical analysis. The majority of patients had abnormal TC and normal TRG, HDL, Apo A1, Apo B and Lip a levels at baseline. Neither exemestane nor tamoxifen had adverse effects on TC, Clinical Trial, Clinical Trial, Phase II, Journal Article, Multicenter Study, Randomized Controlled Trial, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

The potential value of baseline health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) and clinical factors in predicting prognosis was examined using data from an international randomised phase III trial which compared doxorubicin and paclitaxel with doxorubicin and cylophosphamide as first line chemotherapy in 275 women with metastatic breast cancer. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 and the related breast module (QLQ-BR23) were used to assess baseline HRQOL data. The Cox proportional-hazards regression model was used for both univariate and multivariate analyses of survival. In the univariate analyses, performance status (P<0.001) and number of sites involved (P=0.001) were the most important clinical prognostic factors. The HRQOL variables at baseline most strongly associated with longer survival were better appetite, physical and role functioning, as well as less fatigue (P<0.001). The final multivariate model retained performance status (P<0.001) and appetite loss (P=0.005) as the variables best predicting survival. Substantial loss of appetite was the only independent HRQOL factor predicting poor survival and was strongly correlated (/r/>0.5) with fatigue, role and physical functioning. In addition to known clinical factors, appetite loss appears to be a significant prognostic factor for survival in women with metastatic breast cancer. However, the mechanism underlying this association remains to be precisely defined in future studies., Clinical Trial, Clinical Trial, Phase III, Journal Article, Multicenter Study, Randomized Controlled Trial, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

PURPOSE: The purpose of this research was to evaluate whether baseline health-related quality of life (HRQOL) parameters are prognostic factors for survival in locally advanced breast cancer patients. Although the literature highlights the important role of HRQOL parameters in predicting survival in advanced metastatic disease, little evidence exists for earlier stages. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The overall sample consisted of 448 patients randomly assigned to receive cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and fluorouracil versus epirubicin, cyclophosphamide, and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. Patients were enrolled in 12 countries. HRQOL baseline scores were assessed using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30. The Cox proportional hazards regression model was used for both univariate and multivariate analyses of survival. In addition, a bootstrap resampling technique was used to assess the stability of the outcomes. Bootstrap results were then applied for model averaging purposes as a means to account for the observed model selection uncertainty. RESULTS: The final multivariate model retained inflammatory breast cancer (T4d) as the only factor predicting overall survival (OS) with a hazard ratio of 1.375 (95% CI, 1.027 to 1.840; P =.03). The presence of inflammatory breast cancer lowers the median survival time from 6.6 to 4.2 years (36% reduction). None of the preselected HRQOL variables were prognostic for OS or disease-free survival, in either the univariate or multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that baseline HRQOL parameters have no prognostic value in a nonmetastatic breast cancer population., Clinical Trial, Clinical Trial, Phase III, Journal Article, Multicenter Study, Randomized Controlled Trial, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't, Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S., info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Item does not contain fulltext, In this report we present an extension of the pooled analysis of the prognostic impact of urokinase-type plasminogen activator (uPA) and its inhibitor PAI-I in breast cancer patients. We analyzed a different endpoint, metastasis-free survival (MFS). We checked the consistency of the estimates for uPA and PAI-1 for relapse-free survival (RFS) and MFS exploring possible sources of heterogeneity. Nodal status, the most important prognostic factor for breast cancer, introduced heterogeneity in the uPA/PAI-1 survival analyses, reflecting the interaction between nodal status and uPA/PAI-1. The estimates for uPA and PAI-1 were found to be consistent, even when a different transformation of their values was used. The heterogeneity of the separate data sets decreased if the levels of uPA and PAI-1 were ranked, data sets were pooled, and the analyses corrected for the base model that included all traditional prognostic factors, and stratified by data set. We conclude that uPA and PAI-1 are ready to be used in the clinic to help classify breast cancer patients into high and low risk groups.

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Women with hormone-responsive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) may respond to or have stable disease with a number of hormone therapies. We explored the efficacy and safety of the steroidal aromatase inactivator exemestane as first-line hormonal therapy in MBC in postmenopausal women. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with measurable disease were eligible if they had received no prior hormone therapy for metastatic disease and had hormone receptor positive disease or hormone receptor unknown disease with a long disease-free interval from adjuvant therapy. They were randomized to tamoxifen 20 mg/day or exemestane 25 mg/day in this open-label study. RESULTS: Blinded independently reviewed response rates for exemestane and tamoxifen were 41% and 17%, respectively. Fifty-seven per cent of exemestane- and 42% of tamoxifen-treated patients experienced clinical benefit, defined as complete or partial response, or disease stabilization lasting at least 6 months. There was a low incidence of severe flushing, sweating, nausea and edema in women who received exemestane. One exemestane-treated patient had a pulmonary embolism with grade 4 dyspnea. CONCLUSIONS: Exemestane is well tolerated and active in the first-line treatment of hormone-responsive MBC. An ongoing EORTC phase III trial is comparing the efficacy, measuring time-to-disease progression, of exemestane and tamoxifen.

Purpose: To compare the efficacy of a standard anthrocycline-based regimen to a dose-intensified anthracycline regimen in locally advanced breast cancer. Patients and Methods., Locally advanced breast cancer patients were randomly assigned onto a study comparing cyclophosphamide (C; 75 mg/m(2) orally days 1 to 14), epirubicin (E; 60 mg/m(2) intravenously [IV] days 1, 8), and fluorouracil (F; 500 mg/m(2) IV days 1, 8) six cycles every 28 days versus E (1120 mg/m 2 IV day 1), C (830 mg/m(2) IV day 1), and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (filgrastim; 5 mug/kg/d subcutaneously days 2 to 13) six cycles every 14 days. The study was designed to detect a 15% improvement, that is, from 50% to 65% in median progression-free survival (PFS) in favor of the dose-intensified regimen. Results: A total of 448 patients were enrolled over a period of 3 years. The median dose intensity delivered for C and E reached, respectively, 85% and 87% of that planned in the CEF arm and 96% and 95% of that planned in the EC arm. The dose-intensified arm was slightly more emetogenic and generated more grade 3 to 4 anemia but less febrile neutropenia episodes. After a median follow-up of 5.5 years, 277 events have been reported. The median PFS was 34 and 33.7 months for CEF and EC, respectively (P = .68), and the 5-year survival rate was 53% and 51% for CEF and EC, respectively (P = .94). Conclusion: Dose-intensified EC does not provide a measurable therapeutic benefit over CEF as neoadjuvant chemotherapy for unselected locally advanced breast cancer patients. (C) 2003 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of a standard anthracycline-based regimen to a dose-intensified anthracycline regimen in locally advanced breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Locally advanced breast cancer patients were randomly assigned onto a study comparing cyclophosphamide (C; 75 mg/m(2) orally days 1 to 14), epirubicin (E; 60 mg/m(2) intravenously [IV] days 1, 8), and fluorouracil (F; 500 mg/m(2) IV days 1, 8) six cycles every 28 days versus E (120 mg/m(2) IV day 1), C (830 mg/m(2) IV day 1), and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (filgrastim; 5 micro g/kg/d subcutaneously days 2 to 13) six cycles every 14 days. The study was designed to detect a 15% improvement; that is, from 50% to 65% in median progression-free survival (PFS) in favor of the dose-intensified regimen. RESULTS: A total of 448 patients were enrolled over a period of 3 years. The median dose intensity delivered for C and E reached, respectively, 85% and 87% of that planned in the CEF arm and 96% and 95% of that planned in the EC arm. The dose-intensified arm was slightly more emetogenic and generated more grade 3 to 4 anemia but less febrile neutropenia episodes. After a median follow-up of 5.5 years, 277 events have been reported. The median PFS was 34 and 33.7 months for CEF and EC, respectively (P =.68), and the 5-year survival rate was 53% and 51% for CEF and EC, respectively (P =.94). CONCLUSION: Dose-intensified EC does not provide a measurable therapeutic benefit over CEF as neoadjuvant chemotherapy for unselected locally advanced breast cancer patients., Clinical Trial, Clinical Trial, Phase III, Comparative Study, Journal Article, Multicenter Study, Randomized Controlled Trial, Review, SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Liver metastases have long been known to indicate an unfavourable disease course in breast cancer (BC). However, a small subset of patients with liver metastases alone who were treated with pre-taxane chemotherapy regimens was reported to have longer survival compared with patients with liver and metastases at other sites. In the present study, we examined the clinical outcome of breast cancer patients with liver metastases alone in the context of two phase III European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) trials which compared the efficacy of doxorubicin (A) versus paclitaxel (T) (trial 10923) and of AC (cyclophosphamide) versus AT (trial 10961), given as first-line chemotherapy in metastatic BC patients. The median follow-up for the patients with liver metastases was 90.5 months in trial 10923 and 56.6 months in trial 10961. Patients with liver metastases alone comprised 18% of all patients with liver metastases, in both the 10923 and 10961 trials. The median survival of patients with liver metastases alone and liver plus other sites of metastases were 22.7 and 14.2 months (log rank test, P=0.002) in trial 10923 and 27.1 and 16.8 months (log rank test, P=0.19) in trial 10961. The median TTP (time to progression) for patients with liver metastases alone was also longer compared with the liver plus other sites of metastases group in both trials: 10.2 versus 8.8 months (log rank test, P=0.02) in trial 10923 and 8.3 versus 6.7 months (log rank test, P=0.37) in trial 10961. Most patients with liver metastases alone have progression of their disease in their liver again (96 and 60% of patients in trials 10923 and 10961, respectively). Given the high prevalence of breast cancer, improved detection of liver metastases, encouraging survival achieved with currently available cytotoxic agents and the fact that a significant portion of patients with liver metastases alone have progression of their tumour in the liver again, a more aggressive multimodality, Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't, Review, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

BACKGROUND: The potential cardiotoxicity of the doxorubicin-paclitaxel regimen, when paclitaxel is given shortly after the end of the anthracycline infusion, is an issue of concern, as suggested by small single institution Phase II studies. METHODS: In a large multicenter Phase III trial, 275 anthracycline naive metastatic breast carcinoma patients were randomized to receive either doxorubicin (60 mg/m(2)) followed 30 minutes later by paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2) 3-hour infusion; AT) or a standard doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide regimen (AC; 60/600 mg/m(2)). Both treatments were given once every 3 weeks for a maximum of six cycles. Close cardiac monitoring was implemented in the study design. RESULTS: Congestive heart failure (CHF) occurred in three patients in the AT arm and in one patient in the AC arm (P = 0.62). Decreases in left ventricular ejection fraction to below the limit of normal were documented in 33% AT and 19% AC patients and were not predictive of CHF development. CONCLUSIONS: AT is devoid of excessive cardiac risk among metastatic breast carcinoma patients, when the maximum planned cumulative dose of doxorubicin does not exceed 360 mg/m(2)., Clinical Trial, Clinical Trial, Phase III, Comparative Study, Journal Article, Multicenter Study, Randomized Controlled Trial, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't, FLWIN, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

BACKGROUND: Women with hormone-responsive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) may respond to or have stable disease with a number of hormone therapies. We explored the efficacy and safety of the steroidal aromatase inactivator exemestane as first-line hormonal therapy in MBC in postmenopausal women. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with measurable disease were eligible if they had received no prior hormone therapy for metastatic disease and had hormone receptor positive disease or hormone receptor unknown disease with a long disease-free interval from adjuvant therapy. They were randomized to tamoxifen 20 mg/day or exemestane 25 mg/day in this open-label study. RESULTS: Blinded independently reviewed response rates for exemestane and tamoxifen were 41% and 17%, respectively. Fifty-seven per cent of exemestane- and 42% of tamoxifen-treated patients experienced clinical benefit, defined as complete or partial response, or disease stabilization lasting at least 6 months. There was a low incidence of severe flushing, sweating, nausea and edema in women who received exemestane. One exemestane-treated patient had a pulmonary embolism with grade 4 dyspnea. CONCLUSIONS: Exemestane is well tolerated and active in the first-line treatment of hormone-responsive MBC. An ongoing EORTC phase III trial is comparing the efficacy, measuring time-to-disease progression, of exemestane and tamoxifen., Clinical Trial, Clinical Trial, Phase II, Comparative Study, Journal Article, Multicenter Study, Randomized Controlled Trial, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Item does not contain fulltext, In this report we present an extension of the pooled analysis of the prognostic impact of urokinase-type plasminogen activator (uPA) and its inhibitor PAI-I in breast cancer patients. We analyzed a different endpoint, metastasis-free survival (MFS). We checked the consistency of the estimates for uPA and PAI-1 for relapse-free survival (RFS) and MFS exploring possible sources of heterogeneity. Nodal status, the most important prognostic factor for breast cancer, introduced heterogeneity in the uPA/PAI-1 survival analyses, reflecting the interaction between nodal status and uPA/PAI-1. The estimates for uPA and PAI-1 were found to be consistent, even when a different transformation of their values was used. The heterogeneity of the separate data sets decreased if the levels of uPA and PAI-1 were ranked, data sets were pooled, and the analyses corrected for the base model that included all traditional prognostic factors, and stratified by data set. We conclude that uPA and PAI-1 are ready to be used in the clinic to help classify breast cancer patients into high and low risk groups.

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Women with hormone-responsive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) may respond to or have stable disease with a number of hormone therapies. We explored the efficacy and safety of the steroidal aromatase inactivator exemestane as first-line hormonal therapy in MBC in postmenopausal women. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with measurable disease were eligible if they had received no prior hormone therapy for metastatic disease and had hormone receptor positive disease or hormone receptor unknown disease with a long disease-free interval from adjuvant therapy. They were randomized to tamoxifen 20 mg/day or exemestane 25 mg/day in this open-label study. RESULTS: Blinded independently reviewed response rates for exemestane and tamoxifen were 41% and 17%, respectively. Fifty-seven per cent of exemestane- and 42% of tamoxifen-treated patients experienced clinical benefit, defined as complete or partial response, or disease stabilization lasting at least 6 months. There was a low incidence of severe flushing, sweating, nausea and edema in women who received exemestane. One exemestane-treated patient had a pulmonary embolism with grade 4 dyspnea. CONCLUSIONS: Exemestane is well tolerated and active in the first-line treatment of hormone-responsive MBC. An ongoing EORTC phase III trial is comparing the efficacy, measuring time-to-disease progression, of exemestane and tamoxifen.

Item does not contain fulltext, In this report we present an extension of the pooled analysis of the prognostic impact of urokinase-type plasminogen activator (uPA) and its inhibitor PAI-I in breast cancer patients. We analyzed a different endpoint, metastasis-free survival (MFS). We checked the consistency of the estimates for uPA and PAI-1 for relapse-free survival (RFS) and MFS exploring possible sources of heterogeneity. Nodal status, the most important prognostic factor for breast cancer, introduced heterogeneity in the uPA/PAI-1 survival analyses, reflecting the interaction between nodal status and uPA/PAI-1. The estimates for uPA and PAI-1 were found to be consistent, even when a different transformation of their values was used. The heterogeneity of the separate data sets decreased if the levels of uPA and PAI-1 were ranked, data sets were pooled, and the analyses corrected for the base model that included all traditional prognostic factors, and stratified by data set. We conclude that uPA and PAI-1 are ready to be used in the clinic to help classify breast cancer patients into high and low risk groups.