Search

BackgroundPrimary breast cancer (BC) patients with extensive axillary lymph-node involvement have a limited prognosis. The Arbeitsgemeinschaft fuer Gynaekologische Onkologie (AGO) trial compared intense dose-dense (idd) adjuvant chemotherapy with conventionally scheduled chemotherapy in high-risk BC patients. Here we report the final, 10-year follow-up analysis.Patients and methodsEnrolment took place between December 1998 and April 2003. A total of 1284 patients with 4 or more involved axillary lymph nodes were randomly assigned to receive 3 courses each of idd sequential epirubicin, paclitaxel and cyclophosphamide (iddEPC) q2w or standard epirubicin/cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel (EC → P) q3w. Event-free survival (EFS) was the primary end point.ResultsA total of 658 patients were assigned to receive iddEPC and 626 patients were assigned to receive EC → P. The median duration of follow-up was 122 months. EFS was 47% (95% CI 43% to 52%) in the standard group and 56% (95% CI 52% to 60%) in the iddEPC group [hazard ratio (HR) 0.74, 95% CI 0.63-0.87; log-rank P = 0.00014, one-sided]. This benefit was independent of menopausal, hormone receptor or HER2 status. Ten-year overall survival (OS) was 59% (95% CI 55% to 63%) for patients in the standard group and 69% (95% CI 65% to 73%) for patients in the iddEPC group (HR = 0.72, 95% CI 0.60-0.87; log-rank P = 0.0007, two-sided). Nine versus two cases of secondary myeloid leukemia/myelodysplastic syndrome were observed in the iddEPC and the EC → P arm, respectively.ConclusionThe previously reported OS benefit of iddEPC in comparison to conventionally dosed EC → P has been further increased and achieved an absolute difference of 10% after 10 years of follow-up.

Abstract Background Brain metastases (BMs) have a major impact on life expectancy and quality of life for many breast cancer patients. Knowledge about treatment patterns and outcomes is limited. Methods We analysed clinical data of 1712 patients diagnosed with BMs from breast cancer between January 2000 and December 2016 at 80 institutions. Results Median age at diagnosis of BMs was 56 years (22–90 years). About 47.8% (n = 732) of patients had HER2-positive, 21.4% (n = 328) had triple-negative and 30.8% (n = 471) had hormone receptor (HR)–positive, HER2-negative (luminal-like) primary tumours. The proportion of patients with HER2-positive BMs decreased comparing the years 2000–2009 with 2010–2015 (51%–44%), whereas the percentage of patients with luminal-like tumours increased (28%–34%; p = 0.0331). Patients with BMs in the posterior fossa were more often HER2 positive (n = 169/314, 53.8%) than those diagnosed with triple-negative (n = 65/314, 20.7%) or luminal-like primary breast cancer (n = 80/314, 25.5%), (p < 0.0001). Median overall survival (OS) time after development of BMs for the overall cohort was 7.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.7–8.0 months). One-year survival rate was 37.7% (95% CI: 35.2–40.1). Patients with HER2-positive tumours had the longest median OS of 11.6 months (95% CI: 10.0–13.4) compared with 5.9 months (95% CI: 5.0–7.2) for patients with luminal-like and 4.6 months (95% CI: 3.9–5.4) for patients with triple-negative tumours. Patients with HER2-positive tumours who received anti-HER2 treatment had longer median OS than those without (17.1 months versus 7.2 months, p < 0.0001). Conclusions Prognosis of patients after developing BMs varies significantly according to the subtype. The outcome in this cohort is similarly poor in triple-negative and HR-positive/HER2-negative patients. Our results underline the high medical need for improvement of treatment and prevention strategies for BMs in breast cancer patients. Highlights • The first analysis of 1712 patients of breast cancer patients with brain metastases (BMs) is presented. • Localisation of BMs was different depending on tumour subtypes. • Survival times differ depending on the subtype and localisation of BMs. • A change in the incidence of BMs over time was observed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In routine clinical practice, chemotherapy doses are frequently capped at a body surface area (BSA) of 2.0 m2 or adjusted to an ideal weight for obese patients due to safety reasons. Materials and methods: Between August 2004 and July 2008, a total of 3023 patients were enrolled in the GAIN study, a randomized phase III adjuvant trial, comparing two types of dose-dense (dd) regimen [epirubicin, docetaxel and cyclophosphamide (iddETC) versus epirubicin and cyclophosphamide (EC) followed by docetaxel (T) plus capecitabine (X)]. We retrospectively evaluated a total of 555 patients with a BMI of =30 for safety and outcome. Results: Eighteen percent of all patients were obese: 31% of those received chemotherapy according to an unadjusted BSA. For the remaining patients, BSA was adjusted to ideal weight or was capped at 2.0 m2. A total of 15% of obese patients receiving full (unadjusted) dose of chemotherapy versus 6% of obese patients with an adjusted BSA experienced febrile neutropenia (P = 0.003) and 9% versus 3% high-grade thrombopenia (P = 0.002). Overall, 17% versus 10% had a thromboembolic event (P = 0.017), which was high grade in 13% versus 6%, respectively (P = 0.019), and 3% versus 0.3% high-grade hot flushes (P = 0.013). Dizziness (5% versus 11%; P = 0.016), diarrhea (19% versus 27%; P = 0.033) and an increase in serum creatinine (7% versus 14%; P = 0.019) were higher in the adjusted group. However, no differences in disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were observed between non-obese patients, obese patients receiving full-dose chemotherapy or according to an adjusted BSA [5-year DFS 81% (confidence interval 79% to 83%) versus 82% (75% to 87%) versus 81% (76% to 84%); P = 0.761; 5-year OS 90% (88% to 91%) versus 86% (80% to 91%) versus 88% (84% to 91%); P = 0.143]. Conclusion: Obese patients receiving dd chemotherapy according to their real BSA have a higher risk of developing severe toxicities without influencing survival. Therefore, a dose adjustment of intense dd chemotherapy should be carried out to avoid life-threatening complications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Use of parenteral (IV) ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) has been shown to be an efficient treatment of iron deficiency anaemia that can prevent blood transfusion. This substudy compared use of FCM with physician's choice (PhCh) anaemia therapy in breast cancer (BC). In GeparOcto trial pts with primary BC were randomised to receive sequential, intensified, dose-dense epirubicin, paclitaxel, and cyclophosphamide (iddEPC) or weekly paclitaxel/liposomal doxorubicin +/- carboplatin (PM(Cb)) (Schneeweiss et al. Eur J Cancer). Pts with anaemia grade ≥2 (haemoglobin (Hb)<10g/dl), transferrin saturation (TSAT) ≤20% and serum ferritin <300ng/ml (amended to < 600ng/ml) were randomised to receive weekly FCM or PhCh (no treatment, oral iron, erythropoiesis-stimulating agent, or both) anaemia therapy. Stratification factors were CT arm (iddEPC vs PM(Cb)) and planned PhCh. Primary objective compared the frequency of pts achieving Hb ≥ 11g/dl at 6 wks of therapy between both arms. Main secondary objectives were median time to achieve Hb ≥ 11g/dl and changes in iron parameters at baseline vs different time points. It was planned to include 184 pts per arm using 2-sided exact Fisher test, with α = 0.05 and power 80%. Less than anticipated pts had CT-induced anaemia. 125 pts were randomised (62 in FCM, 63 in PhCh arm). Median age was 46 years (range 26-66); median levels of Hb, serum ferritin and TSAT were 9.6 (7.6-11.8)g/dl, 201 (3.0-551)ng/ml and 14.0% (4.0%-76.0%), respectively. After 6 wks, overall 40 (32.0%) pts (22 in FCM and 18 in PhCh arm; p = 0.447) reached Hb ≥ 11g/dl. Median time to achieve Hb ≥ 11g/dl was 9.0 wks with FCM vs 10.6 wks by PhCh. Median Hb changes vs baseline were comparable in both arms during the treatment. 2 pts in FCM and 5 in PhCh arm (p = 0.246) received blood transfusions until 6 wks of therapy. This is the first study investigating IV iron treatment for dose-dense CT-induced anaemia in BC. 32% of pts reached Hb ≥ 11g/dl at 6 wks. FCM treatment was not different than PhCh for anaemia therapy. NCT02125344. German Breast Group (GBG). The anaemia supportive treatment substudy was financially supported by Vifor Pharma Ltd and the GeparOcto trial by Amgen, Roche and TEVA. H. Tesch: Honoraria (self): Vifor; Honoraria (self): Roche; Honoraria (self): Amgen. S. Loibl: Honoraria (institution), Research grant / Funding (institution): Roche; Honoraria (institution), Research grant / Funding (institution): Amgen GmbH; Honoraria (institution), Research grant / Funding (institution): AstraZeneca; Honoraria (institution), Research grant / Funding (institution): Celgene; Honoraria (institution), Research grant / Funding (institution): Novartis; Honoraria (institution), Research grant / Funding (institution): Pfizer; Honoraria (institution), Research grant / Funding (institution): Seattle Genetics; Honoraria (institution), Research grant / Funding (institution): Teva; Honoraria (institution), Research grant / Funding (institution): Vifor; Honoraria (institution), Research grant / Funding (institution): PRIME; Honoraria (institution), Research grant / Funding (institution): Daiichi; Licensing / Royalties: EP14153692.0 pending. V. Möbus: Honoraria (self): Amgen; Honoraria (self): Celgene; Honoraria (self): Myelotherapeutics; Honoraria (self): AstraZeneca. M. Untch: Honoraria (institution), Non-remunerated activity/ies: Abbvie; Honoraria (institution), Non-remunerated activity/ies: Amgen GmbH; Honoraria (institution), Non-remunerated activity/ies: AstraZeneca; Honoraria (institution): BMS; Honoraria (institution), Non-remunerated activity/ies: Celgene GmbH; Honoraria (institution), Non-remunerated activity/ies: Daiji Sankyo; Honoraria (institution), Non-remunerated activity/ies: Eisai GmbH; Honoraria (institution), Non-remunerated activity/ies: Janssen Cilag; Honoraria (institution), Non-remunerated activity/ies: Lilly; Honoraria (institution), Non-remunerated activity/ies: MSD Merck; Honoraria (institution), Non-remunerated activity/ies: Mundipharma; Honoraria (institution), Non-remunerated activity/ies: Myriad Genetics; Honoraria (institution), Non-remunerated activity/ies: Odonate; Honoraria (institution), Non-remunerated activity/ies: Pfizer GmbH; Honoraria (institution): PUMA Biotechnology; Honoraria (institution), Non-remunerated activity/ies: Novartis; Honoraria (institution), Non-remunerated activity/ies: Roche Pharma AG; Honoraria (institution), Non-remunerated activity/ies: Sanofi Aventis Deutschland GmbH; Honoraria (institution), Non-remunerated activity/ies: Sividon Diagnostics; Honoraria (institution), Non-remunerated activity/ies: TEVA Pharmaceuticals Ind Ltd. C. Hanusch: Honoraria (self): Roche; Honoraria (self): Pfizer; Honoraria (self): Novartis; Honoraria (self): Celgene; Honoraria (self): Lilly; Honoraria (self): AstraZeneca. S. Seiler: Honoraria (self), presentations: Roche; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Amgen GmbH; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Hexal; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Mundipharma; Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis. P.A. Fasching: Research grant / Funding (institution): Novartis; Research grant / Funding (institution): Biontech; Honoraria (self): Novartis; Honoraria (self): Roche; Honoraria (self): Pfizer; Honoraria (self): Celgene; Honoraria (self): Daiichi-Sankyo; Honoraria (self): TEVA; Honoraria (self): AstraZeneca; Honoraria (self): Merck Sharp & Dohme; Honoraria (self): Myelo Therapeutics; Honoraria (self): Macrogenics; Honoraria (self): Eisai; Honoraria (self): PUMA; Research grant / Funding (institution): Cepheid. K. Rhiem: Honoraria (self): Tesaro; Honoraria (self): AstraZeneca; Honoraria (self): Pfizer. J. Huober: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Lilly; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Novartis; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Roche; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Pfizer; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Hexal; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: AstraZeneca; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: MSD Oncology; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Celgene; Honoraria (self), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Abbvie. C. Denkert: Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: Sividon Diagnostics; Honoraria (self): Teva; Honoraria (self): Novartis; Honoraria (self): Pfizer; Honoraria (self): Roche; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Amgen; Advisory / Consultancy: MSD Oncology; Advisory / Consultancy: Daiichi Sankyo; Licensing / Royalties: VMScope digital pathology software; Licensing / Royalties: Patent application: EP18209672 - cancer immunotherapy; Licensing / Royalties: Patent application EP20150702464 - therapy response; Licensing / Royalties: Patent application EP20150702464 - therapy response. T. Link: Honoraria (self): Amgen; Non-remunerated activity/ies: AstraZeneca; Honoraria (self), Non-remunerated activity/ies: Pfizer; Non-remunerated activity/ies: Pharma Mar; Non-remunerated activity/ies: Daiichi Sankyo; Honoraria (self): MSD Oncology; Honoraria (self): Novartis; Honoraria (self): Teva; Honoraria (self): Tesaro; Honoraria (self), Non-remunerated activity/ies: Roche. A. Schneeweiss: Honoraria (self), Research grant / Funding (institution), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Celgene; Honoraria (self), Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (institution), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Roche; Research grant / Funding (institution): AbbVie; Research grant / Funding (institution): Molecular Partner; Honoraria (self), Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: AstraZeneca; Honoraria (self), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Pfizer; Honoraria (self): MSD Oncology; Honoraria (self): Tesaro; Honoraria (self): Lilly. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]