Concomitant versus sequential administration of epirubicin and paclitaxel as first-line therapy in metastatic breast carcinoma

Everolimus plus aromatase inhibitors as maintenance therapy after first-line chemotherapy: Final results of the phase III randomised MAIN-A (MAINtenance Afinitor) trial

BACKGROUND

Despite endocrine therapy being the mainstay of treatment for hormone receptor positive (HR+)/HER2- metastatic breast cancer, patients at risk of visceral crisis or doubt for endocrine sensitivity are still offered first-line chemotherapy. Maintenance hormonal therapy is generally offered at the discontinuation of chemotherapy. The MAINtenance Afinitor study is a randomised, phase III trial comparing maintenance everolimus combined with aromatase inhibitors (AIs) versus AI monotherapy in patients with disease control after first-line chemotherapy.

METHODS

Patients with stable disease, partial response or complete response after first-line chemotherapy were randomised to everolimus plus AIs (exemestane or letrozole or anastrozole) or to AIs alone. Primary aim was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary aims included response rate, safety and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

In total, 110 patients were randomised to everolimus + AIs (n = 52) or to AIs (n = 58). Median PFS was 11.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 8.1-13.8) in the everolimus + AI arm and 7.2 months (95% CI 4.7-10.9) in the AI monotherapy arm (hazard ratio [HR] 0.71, 95% CI 0.47-1.06). Objective response rate was 22.4% in everolimus + AI arm and 19.2% in AI monotherapy arm. A higher proportion of disease progression as best response was reported in the AI monotherapy arm (28.8% versus 14.3%). Median OS was 35.7 months (95% CI 26.0-47.8) in the combination arm versus 33.5 (95% CI 26.4-42.7) in the AI alone arm (HR 1.0, 95% CI 0.61-1.62).

CONCLUSIONS

EVE + AIs did not significantly impact on the outcome of metastatic breast cancer patients deemed suitable for first-line chemotherapy. Also taking into account treatment tolerability, maintenance endocrine therapy remains the standard.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

EudraCT: 2013-004153-24.

A Time-Programmed Release of Dual Drugs from an Implantable Trilayer Structured Fiber Device for Synergistic Treatment of Breast Cancer

Combination chemotherapy with time-programmed administration of multiple drugs is a promising method for cancer treatment. However, realizing time-programmed release of combined drugs from a single carrier is still a great challenge in enhanced cancer therapy. Here, an implantable trilayer structured fiber device is developed to achieve time-programmed release of combined drugs for synergistic treatment of breast cancer. The fiber device is prepared by a modified microfluidic-electrospinning technique. The glycerol solution containing chemotherapy agent doxorubicin (Dox) forms the internal periodic cavities of the fiber, and poly(l-lactic acid) and poly(ε-caprolactone) containing the angiogenesis inhibitor apatinib (Apa) form the double walls of the fiber. Rapid release of Dox can be obtained by adjusting the wall thickness of the cavities, meanwhile sustained release of Apa is achieved through the slow degradation of the fiber matrix. After the fiber device is implanted subcutaneously near to the implanted solid tumor of mice, an excellent synergistic therapeutic effect is achieved through time-programmed release of the combined dual drugs. The fiber device provides a platform to sequentially co-deliver dual or multiple drugs for enhanced combined therapeutic efficacy.

Impact of BMI on HER2+ metastatic breast cancer patients treated with pertuzumab and/or trastuzumab emtansine. Real-world evidence

Body mass index (BMI) is a main indicator of obesity and its association with breast cancer is well established. However, little is known in the metastatic setting, especially in HER2-positive patients. We assessed the influence of BMI on clinical outcomes of patients treated with pertuzumab and/or trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) for HER2+ metastatic breast cancer (mBC). BMI was addressed as a categorical variable, being classified on the basis of the following ranges, that is, 18.5-24.9, 25-29.9, and 30.0-34.9, namely, normal weight, overweight, and Class I obesity. The outcomes chosen were progression-free survival to first-line chemotherapy (PFS1) and overall survival (OS). Overall (N = 709), no impact of BMI was observed on PFS1 (p = .15), while BMI ≥ 30 was associated with worse OS (p = .003). In subjects who progressed to first line (N = 575), analyzing data across PFS1 quartiles and strata of disease burden, BMI predicted lower PFS1 in patients within the I PFS1 quartile and with the lowest disease burden (p = .001). Univariate analysis showed a detrimental effect of BMI ≥ 30 on OS for women within the I PFS1 quartile (p = .03). Results were confirmed in multivariate analysis. According to PFS1 quartiles a higher percentage of patients with high BMI and low disease burden progressed within 6 months of therapy. The effect of BMI on prognosis was also confirmed in multivariate analysis of OS for overall population. In our cohort, a BMI ≥ 30 correlated with worse OS in patients with HER2+ mBC who received pertuzumab and/or T-DM1 but had no impact on PFS to first line. BMI predicted worse I PFS1 quartile.

Statistical analysis of patient-reported outcome data in randomised controlled trials of locally advanced and metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review

Although patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as health-related quality of life, are important endpoints in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), there is little consensus about the analysis, interpretation, and reporting of these data. We did a systematic review to assess the variability, quality, and standards of PRO data analyses in advanced breast cancer RCTs. We searched PubMed for English language articles published in peer-reviewed journals between Jan 1, 2001, and Oct 30, 2017. Eligible articles were those that reported PRO results from RCTs of adult patients with advanced breast cancer receiving anti-cancer treatments with reported sample sizes of at least 50 patients-66 RCTs met the selection criteria. Only eight (12%) RCTs reported a specific PRO research hypothesis. Heterogeneity in the statistical methods used to assess PRO data was observed, with a mixture of longitudinal and cross-sectional techniques. Not all articles addressed the problem of multiple testing. Fewer than half of RCTs (28 [42%]) reported the clinical significance of their findings. 48 (73%) did not report how missing data were handled. Our systematic review shows a need to improve standards in the analysis, interpretation, and reporting of PRO data in cancer RCTs. Lack of standardisation makes it difficult to draw robust conclusions and compare findings across trials. The Setting International Standards in the Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Data Consortium was set up to address this need and develop recommendations on the analysis of PRO data in RCTs.

Weekly Docetaxel and Gemcitabine following Docetaxel plus Epirubicin or Vinorelbine as First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Breast Cancer: Results of a Multicenter Phase II Study

AIMS AND BACKGROUND

Sequential docetaxel and gemcitabine following initial docetaxel plus epirubicin or vinorelbine association could be worthwhile as first-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer.

METHODS

Fifty-eight patients entered a phase II study that included two sequential phases. In the first phase, 36 and 22 patients previously unexposed or exposed to adjuvant anthracyclines received the association of docetaxel (75 mg/m2, day 1) with epirubicin (75 mg/m2, day 1) or vinorelbine (20 mg/m2, days 1 and 5), respectively, every 21 days for 4 courses. In the second phase, patients who had a response (R) or stable disease (SD) received docetaxel (35 mg/m2) and gemcitabine (800 mg/m2) on days 1, 8 and 15 every 28 days for 4 courses.

RESULTS

In the first phase, grade > or = III neutropenia occurred in 51% and 37% of patients during docetaxel-epirubicin and docetaxel-vinorelbine, respectively. In the second phase, it occurred in the 27% and 15% of patients initially treated with docetaxel-epirubicin and docetaxel-vinorelbine, respectively. On an intention to treat basis, the complete (CR) + partial response (PR) rate to the first phase was 71%, and 22% of patients had SD, without a significant difference between the docetaxel-epirubicin and docetaxel-vinorelbine arms. After the second phase, the CR + PR rate was 65%, and 14% of patients had SD. Median time to progression and survival were 12.1 and 22.0 months, respectively, without a significant difference between patients initially treated with docetaxel-epirubicin and docetaxel-vinorelbine.

CONCLUSIONS

Following an initial docetaxel-based treatment, weekly docetaxel and gemcitabine maintains high percentages of R and SD, with improved toxicity. Survival was similar in patients previously untreated and treated with adjuvant anthracyclines.

Characteristics and outcomes of breast cancer patients enrolled in the National Cancer Institute Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program sponsored phase I clinical trials

PURPOSE

Breast cancer (BC) is the most commonly diagnosed cancer and the second leading cause of cancer-related death among women. Given the availability of approved therapies and abundance of phase II and III clinical trials, historically few BC patients have been referred for consideration of participation on a phase I trial. We were interested in determining whether clinical benefit rates differed in patients with BC from other patients enrolled in phase I trials.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of all Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP) sponsored phase I trials from 1993 to 2012. We report an analysis of demographic variables, rates of response to treatment, grade 4 toxicities, and treatment-related deaths.

RESULTS

De-identified data from 8087 patients were analyzed, with 1,376 having a diagnosis of BC. The median time from initial cancer diagnosis to enrollment in a CTEP-sponsored phase I clinical trial was 614 days for all patients. Breast cancer patients were enrolled on average 790 days after initial diagnosis, while non-BC patients had a median enrollment time of 582 days (p < 0.001). Breast cancer patients had more clinical responses than non-BC patients (18.3% vs. 4.3%, respectively). Along with the higher rate of response, BC patients remained on phase I trials longer than non-BC patients with a median of 70 days while the latter were on trial for a median of 57 days. The overall rate of death related to the treatment drugs was 0.47%.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data confirm our hypothesis that when compared to a general population of patients with cancer enrolled on phase I clinical trials, BC patients tend to derive clinical benefit from these therapies with similar toxicity profile. This evidence further supports enrollment of BC patients on phase I trials.

Cancer drug related cardiotoxicity during breast cancer treatment

INTRODUCTION

Breast cancer (BC) is the most common cancer in women. Although therapeutic armamentarium like chemotherapy, endocrine and target agents have increased survival, cardiovascular side effects have been observed. A comprehensive risk assessment, early detection and management of cardiac adverse events is therefore needed.

AREAS COVERED

In this review we focus on cardiotoxicity data deriving from Phase III randomized trials, systematic reviews and meta-analysis in BC patients. We provide insight into advances that have been made in the molecular mechanisms, clinical presentation and management of such adverse event.

EXPERT OPINION

Despite the large number of data from Phase III trials about cardiac events incidence, there are poor evidences for detection, monitoring and management of cardiotoxicity during BC treatment. Future cardiotoxicity-oriented clinical cancer research can help to predict the risk of cardiac adverse events and improve patients' outcome. Multidisciplinary approach as well as integration of blood biomarkers with imaging will be desirable.

Use of Cytotoxic Chemotherapy in Metastatic Breast Cancer: Putting Taxanes in Perspective

Agents that target microtubule (MT) dynamics have been used extensively for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Among these agents are taxanes (solvent-based paclitaxel [sb-paclitaxel], docetaxel, and nab-paclitaxel) and non-taxanes, such as eribulin and ixabepilone. Although these agents have been approved for the treatment of MBC, questions regarding the ideal agent, regimen (single agent vs. combination vs. sequential), and schedule still remain. This systematic review examined pivotal trials for taxanes, eribulin, and ixabepilone as well as first-line taxane trials in MBC. Only randomized trials that enrolled ≥ 100 patients were included. Publications on combination regimens with targeted agents were excluded unless they also included a comparison between nontargeted regimens. The studies were grouped into taxane versus taxane, sb-paclitaxel versus non-taxane, and docetaxel versus non-taxane regimens. In taxane versus taxane comparisons, the efficacy of sb-paclitaxel and docetaxel appeared similar, nab-paclitaxel every 3 weeks (q3w) appeared superior to sb-paclitaxel q3w, and weekly nab-paclitaxel appeared superior to docetaxel. In general, taxane regimens demonstrated higher overall response rates (ORRs) versus non-taxane regimens; however, only 2 trials demonstrated longer overall survival (OS) for taxane regimens. Taxanes will likely continue to be used in earlier lines of therapy, whereas eribulin and ixabepilone may be more appropriate for later lines of treatment. Ongoing research may identify biomarkers that could help in selecting the appropriate MT-targeted agent for a given patient.

Defining the survival benchmark for breast cancer patients with systemic relapse

BACKGROUND

Our original paper, published in 1992, reported a median overall survival after first relapse in breast cancer of 26 months. The current retrospective review concentrates more specifically on patients with first systemic relapse, recognizing that subsets of patients with local recurrence are potentially curable.

METHODS

Records of 5,168 patients from a largely breast-cancer-specific oncology practice were reviewed to identify breast cancer patients with their first relapse between 1996 and 2006 after primary treatment. There were 189 patients diagnosed with metastatic disease within 2 months of being seen by our therapeutic team and 101 patients diagnosed with metastatic disease greater than 2 months. The patients were divided in order to account for lead-time bias than could potentially confound the analysis of the latter 101 patients.

RESULTS

Median survival for our primary study population of 189 patients was 33 months. As expected, the median survival from first systemic relapse (MSFSR) for the 101 patients excluded because of the potential for lead-time bias was better at 46 months. Factors influencing prognosis included estrogen receptor (ER) status, disease-free interval (DFI), and dominant site of metastasis. Compared with our original series, even with elimination of local-regional recurrences in our present series, the median survival from first relapse has improved by 7 months over the past two decades.

CONCLUSION

The new benchmark for MSFSR approaches 3 years.

Systemic treatment approaches in her2-negative advanced breast cancer-guidance on the guidelines

Despite advancements in the treatment of early-stage breast cancer, many patients still develop disease recurrence; others present with de novo metastatic disease. For most patients with advanced breast cancer, the primary treatment intent is noncurative-that is, palliative-in nature. The goals of treatment should therefore focus on maximizing symptom control and extending survival. Treatments should be evaluated on an individualized basis in terms of evidence, but also with full respect for the wishes of the patient in terms of acceptable toxicity. Given the availability of extensive reviews on the roles of endocrine therapy and her2 (human epidermal growth factor receptor 2)-targeted therapies for advanced disease, we focus here mainly on treatment guidelines for the non-endocrine management of her2-negative advanced breast cancer in a Canadian health care context.

Risk of treatment related death and febrile neutropaenia with first line palliative chemotherapy for de novo metastatic breast cancer in clinical practice in a middle resource country

BACKGROUND

The risk of febrile neutropaenia (FN) and treatment related death (TRD) with first line palliative chemotherapy for de novo metastatic breast cancer (MBC) remains unknown outside of a clinical trial setting despite its widespread usage. This study aimed to determine rates in a large cohort of patients treated in the University of Malaya Medical Centre (UMMC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who were treated with first line palliative chemotherapy for de novo MBC from 2002-2011 in UMMC were identified from the UMMC Breast Cancer Registry. Information collected included patient demographics, histopathological features, treatment received, including the different chemotherapy regimens, and presence of FN and TRD. FN was defined as an oral temperature >38.5° or two consecutive readings of >38.0° for 2 hours and an absolute neutrophil count <0.5x109/L, or expected to fall below 0.5x109/L (de Naurois et al, 2010). TRD was defined as death occurring during or within 30 days of the last chemotherapy treatment, as a consequence of the chemotherapy treatment. Statistical analysis was performed using the SPSS version 18.0 software. Survival probabilities were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and differences in survival compared using log-rank test.

RESULTS

Between 1st January 2002 and 31st December 2011, 424 patients with MBC were treated in UMMC. A total of 186 out of 221 patients with de novo MBC who received first line palliative chemotherapy were analyzed. The mean age of patients in this study was 49.5 years (range 24 to 74 years). Biologically, ER status was negative in 54.4% of patients and Her-2 status was positive in 31.1%. A 5-flourouracil, epirubicin and cyclophosphamide (FEC) chemotherapy regimen was chosen for 86.6% of the cases. Most patients had multiple metastatic sites (58.6%). The main result of this study showed a FN rate of 5.9% and TRD rate of 3.2%. The median survival (MS) for the entire cohort was 19 months. For those with multiple metastatic sites, liver only, lung only, bone only and brain only metastatic sites, the MS was 18, 24, 19, 24 and 8 months respectively (p-value= 0.319).

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, we surmise that FEC is a safe regimen with acceptable FN and TRD rates for de novo MBC.

Clinical outcome of Turkish metastatic breast cancer patients with currently available treatment modalities--single center experience

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer is the most common malignancy and the second leading cause of cancer-related death among women in the developed countries. Despite advances in screening, improved local therapies and adjuvant systemic treatments, median survival of metastatic breast cancer patients (MBC) is in the range of 2-3 years at most. We aimed to investigate whether the prognostic factors and therapeutic responses of our Turkish patients are similar to those in the literature.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reviewed the medical records of MBC patients who had been treated in our institution between 1999-2009 and analyzed their clinicopathological features and survival outcomes retrospectively.

RESULTS

A hundred and sixty patients were included. Median age was 47 (23-82), median follow up was 24 (2-186) months. At the time of diagnosis 59% of patients were under the age of 50 and 46% were postmenopausal. The majority (37%) had multiple sites of metastases. Forty percent received endocrine therapy and 40% chemotherapy as first line metastatic treatment. Thirty (20%) patients were treated with molecular targeting agents like trastuzumab, lapatinib and sunitinib, frequently combined with a chemotherapy agent. Five-year overall survival (OS) was 32% and median OS was 38 months for the whole group. Five year progression free survival (PFS) was 10% and median PFS was 10 months. Menopausal status, hormone receptor expression and disease free status had a significant impact on overall survival in the multivariate analysis (p 0.018, p 0.018 and p:0.003, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

All our patients were treated with the modern oncologic therapies recommended by the international guidelines. From our data, MBC patients live up to 3-4 years, indicating that further improvement beyond that requires development of new treatment modalities. The survival outcomes of our patients were consistent with the data reported in the literature.

Combination versus sequential single agent chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Combination chemotherapy can cause greater tumour cell kill if the drug dose is not compromised, while sequential single agent chemotherapy may allow for greater dose intensity and treatment time, potentially meaning greater benefit from each single agent. In addition, sequentially using single agents might cause less toxicity and impairment of quality of life, but it is not known whether this might compromise survival time.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of combination chemotherapy compared to the same drugs given sequentially in women with metastatic breast cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group Specialised Register, using the search terms "advanced breast cancer" and "chemotherapy", MEDLINE and EMBASE on 31 October 2013. The World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov were also searched (22 March 2012).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of combination chemotherapy compared to the same drugs used sequentially in women with metastatic breast cancer in the first-, second- or third-line setting.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data from published trials. Hazard ratios (HR) were derived from time-to-event outcomes where possible, and a fixed-effect model was used for meta-analysis. Response rates were analysed as dichotomous variables (risk ratios (RR)), and toxicity and quality of life data were extracted where available.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve trials reporting on nine treatment comparisons (2317 patients randomised) were identified. The majority of trials (10 trials) had an unclear or high risk of bias. Time-to-event data were collected for nine trials for overall survival and eight trials for progression-free survival. All 12 trials reported results for tumour response. In the 12 trials there were 1023 deaths in 2317 women randomised. There was no difference in overall survival, with an overall HR of 1.04 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.16; P = 0.45), and no significant heterogeneity. This result was consistent in the four subgroups analysed (risk of bias, line of chemotherapy, type of schema of chemotherapy, and relative dose intensity). In particular, there was no difference in survival according to the type of schema of chemotherapy, that is whether chemotherapy was given on disease progression or after a set number of cycles. In the eight trials that reported progression-free survival, 678 women progressed out of the 886 women randomised. The combination arm had a higher risk of progression than the sequential arm (HR 1.16; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.31; P = 0.01) with no significant heterogeneity. This result was consistent in all subgroups. Overall tumour response rates were higher in the combination arm (RR 1.13; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.24; P = 0.008) but there was significant heterogeneity for this outcome across the trials. In the seven trials that reported treatment-related deaths, there was no significant difference between the two arms, although the CIs were very wide due to the small number of events (RR 1.53; 95% CI 0.71 to 3.29; P = 0.28). The risk of febrile neutropenia was higher in the combination arm (RR 1.32; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.65; P = 0.01). There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of neutropenia, nausea and vomiting, or treatment-related deaths. Overall quality of life showed no difference between the two groups, but only three trials reported this outcome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Sequential single agent chemotherapy has a positive effect on progression-free survival, whereas combination chemotherapy has a higher response rate and a higher risk of febrile neutropenia in metastatic breast cancer. There is no difference in overall survival time between these treatment strategies, both overall and in the subgroups analysed. In particular, there was no difference in survival according to the schema of chemotherapy (giving chemotherapy on disease progression or after a set number of cycles) or according to the line of chemotherapy (first-line versus second- or third-line). Generally this review supports the recommendations by international guidelines to use sequential monotherapy unless there is rapid disease progression.

Combination versus sequential single agent chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Combination chemotherapy can cause greater tumour cell kill if the drug dose is not compromised, while sequential single agent chemotherapy may allow for greater dose intensity and treatment time, potentially meaning greater benefit from each single agent. In addition, sequentially using single agents might cause less toxicity and impairment of quality of life, but it is not known whether this might compromise survival time.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of combination chemotherapy compared to the same drugs given sequentially in women with metastatic breast cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group Specialised Register, using the search terms "advanced breast cancer" and "chemotherapy", MEDLINE and EMBASE on 31 October 2013. The World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov were also searched (22 March 2012).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of combination chemotherapy compared to the same drugs used sequentially in women with metastatic breast cancer in the first-, second- or third-line setting.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data from published trials. Hazard ratios (HR) were derived from time-to-event outcomes where possible, and a fixed-effect model was used for meta-analysis. Response rates were analysed as dichotomous variables (risk ratios (RR)), and toxicity and quality of life data were extracted where available.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve trials reporting on nine treatment comparisons (2317 patients randomised) were identified. The majority of trials (10 trials) had an unclear or high risk of bias. Time-to-event data were collected for nine trials for overall survival and eight trials for progression-free survival. All 12 trials reported results for tumour response. In the 12 trials there were 1023 deaths in 2317 women randomised. There was no difference in overall survival, with an overall HR of 1.04 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.16; P = 0.45), and no significant heterogeneity. This result was consistent in the four subgroups analysed (risk of bias, line of chemotherapy, type of schema of chemotherapy, and relative dose intensity). In particular, there was no difference in survival according to the type of schema of chemotherapy, that is whether chemotherapy was given on disease progression or after a set number of cycles. In the eight trials that reported progression-free survival, 678 women progressed out of the 886 women randomised. The combination arm had a higher risk of progression than the sequential arm (HR 1.16; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.31; P = 0.01) with no significant heterogeneity. This result was consistent in all subgroups. Overall tumour response rates were higher in the combination arm (RR 1.13; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.24; P = 0.008) but there was significant heterogeneity for this outcome across the trials. In the seven trials that reported treatment-related deaths, there was no significant difference between the two arms, although the CIs were very wide due to the small number of events (RR 1.53; 95% CI 0.71 to 3.29; P = 0.28). The risk of febrile neutropenia was higher in the combination arm (RR 1.32; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.65; P = 0.01). There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of neutropenia, nausea and vomiting, or treatment-related deaths. Overall quality of life showed no difference between the two groups, but only three trials reported this outcome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Sequential single agent chemotherapy has a positive effect on progression-free survival, whereas combination chemotherapy has a higher response rate and a higher risk of febrile neutropenia in metastatic breast cancer. There is no difference in overall survival time between these treatment strategies, both overall and in the subgroups analysed. In particular, there was no difference in survival according to the schema of chemotherapy (giving chemotherapy on disease progression or after a set number of cycles) or according to the line of chemotherapy (first-line versus second- or third-line). Generally this review supports the recommendations by international guidelines to use sequential monotherapy unless there is rapid disease progression.

A three-arm randomized phase II study of oral vinorelbine plus capecitabine versus oral vinorelbine and capecitabine in sequence versus docetaxel plus capecitabine in patients with metastatic breast cancer previously treated with anthracyclines

Owing to the increased number of patients treated with anthracycline-based adjuvant chemotherapy, there is a need for new effective and tolerable nonanthracycline regimens in metastatic breast cancer. Patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer previously treated with anthracyclines in (neo)adjuvant setting were randomized to fully oral 3 weekly cycles of the combination of oral vinorelbine with capecitabine (V + C), to the same drugs alternating every three cycles (V↔C), or to the combination of docetaxel and capecitabine (D + C). V was given at 80 mg/m(2) (after the first cycle at 60 mg/m(2)) on days 1 and 8 in the V + C arm and weekly in the V↔C arm, C at 1,000 mg/m(2) bid from days 1 to 14, and D on day 1 at 75 mg/m(2). The primary end point was disease control rate (CR + PR + NC ≥ 3 months). A total of 139 patients were randomly assigned to V + C (44 patients), V↔C (47 patients), and D + C (48 patients). After an independent review, the disease control rate in the intent-to-treat population in the V + C, V↔C, and D + C arms [95% CI] was 70.5% [54.8-83.2], 37.0% [23.2-52.5], and 70.8% [55.9-83.1], and the median overall survival 22.2, 19.4, and 24.2 months, respectively. When taken into account the disease control rate, the alternating V↔C regimen seems to be less effective compared with V + C or D + C combinations. Combinations of V + C or D + C showed similar efficacy and a different toxicity profile; V + C induced less neutropenia, infection, hand-foot syndrome, fatigue/asthenia, and alopecia, whereas D + C - less gastrointestinal toxicity. V + C combination constitutes a valuable fully oral alternative option to D + C in patients with metastatic breast cancer previously treated with anthracyclines in (neo)adjuvant setting, while offering the advantages of an all-oral treatment.

Vinorelbine and capecitabine in anthracycline- and/or taxane-pretreated metastatic breast cancer: sequential or combinational?

PURPOSE

The difference between combinational and pre-planned sequential therapies using regimens that include non-anthracycline and taxane in the first-line setting remains unclear. The purpose of this study is to explore the interaction between vinorelbine (N) and capecitabine (X) in breast cancer cells and to compare the simultaneous or sequential administration of the two drugs in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) as first-line treatment.

METHODS

First, we explored the effects of vinorelbine on thymidine phosphorylase (TP) and thymidylate synthase (TS) expression in breast cancer cells. Next, we designed a prospective randomized phase II trial of MBC patients comparing the combinational and pre-planned sequential administration of vinorelbine and capecitabine in the first-line metastatic setting. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). The correlation between clinical characteristics and class III β-tubulin expression and patient survival was also explored.

RESULTS

Vinorelbine upregulates TP and downregulates TS in breast cancer cells, thereby further sensitizing tumor cells to capecitabine, which indicated the proper order for sequential therapy should be N → X. Sixty patients were eligible for the phase II trial. No significant difference was observed between the combinational arm and the sequential arm in terms of progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR), and overall survival (OS). Only in the subgroup of patients with liver metastases were median PFS and OS significantly prolonged in the combinational arm (8.5 vs. 6.4 months, P = 0.041 and 23.8 vs. 13.9 months, P = 0.028, respectively). No association between class III β-tubulin expression and patient outcome was identified. Grade 3/4 adverse events were more common in the combinational arm.

CONCLUSIONS

Both the NX regimen and pre-planned sequential N → X regimen are acceptable as first-line treatments with comparable efficacies for MBC patients previously treated with anthracyclines and/or taxanes. Sequential monotherapies are recommended as the preferred approach to first-line chemotherapy for most MBC patients in the absence of an imminent visceral crisis and the need for rapid symptom and/or disease control.

Assessment of quality of life in advanced breast cancer. An overview of randomized phase III trials

BACKGROUND

Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) parameters are often used as end points in phase III trials in advanced breast cancer. The frequency and correlates of significant gains in HRQOL have not been assessed.

METHODS

To evaluate the contemporary role for HRQOL assessment in advanced breast cancer, we searched PubMed for the main and companion papers reporting the results of phase III trials on systemic antineoplastic therapies published between 1/98 and 7/09 in 11 leading journals.

RESULTS

The search yielded 87 trials that enrolled a total of 33,669 patients. HRQOL was mentioned/reported in the main paper in 34 trials, reported in a companion paper in one (a total of 35/87=40%), and mentioned in the abstract of the main paper in 19/34 cases (56%). There was no temporal trend for reporting on HRQOL in the two 6-year periods. Although formal statistical comparisons were reported in 31/35 cases (89%), a significant difference was found in only 4/31 (13%) trials, always favoring the experimental arm. Given the small number of studies with a significant HRQOL finding, we could not assess correlates of gain in HRQOL.

CONCLUSIONS

HRQOL is one of the key indicators of treatment benefit in advanced breast cancer, but contemporary systemic therapies in this setting do not appear to affect HRQOL differentially.

Efficacy and safety of bevacizumab in combination with docetaxel for the first-line treatment of elderly patients with locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer: results from AVADO

BACKGROUND

Oncologic treatment in elderly patients is challenging, due to comorbidities, often impaired organ function, limited clinical trial evidence, inadequate guidelines and no consistent 'elderly' definition. We report exploratory sub-analyses of safety and efficacy in elderly patients, defined as ⩾ 65years old, in AVastin And DOcetaxel (AVADO) receiving first-line bevacizumab plus docetaxel for metastatic breast cancer (mBC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with HER2-negative, locally recurrent or mBC were randomised to 3-weekly docetaxel (100mg/m(2)) with placebo, bevacizumab 7.5mg/kg or bevacizumab 15 mg/kg, for 9 cycles or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients had no prior chemotherapy for mBC.

RESULTS

Progression-free survival (PFS) was increased with bevacizumab in the elderly subpopulation (n=127), the effect being greater with higher dose (hazard ratio=0.63 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.383-1.032] versus 0.76 [95% CI: 0.46-1.262], respectively). PFS was numerically similar in the elderly and overall populations, but the former failed to achieve statistical significance. Overall response rates for docetaxel plus placebo, bevacizumab 7.5mg/kg and 15 mg/kg were 44.7%, 36.6% and 50.0%, respectively. Effects on survival were not statistically significant. Bevacizumab was well tolerated in elderly patients, the most common adverse effects were neutropenia and febrile neutropenia; there was no excess of grade⩾3 cardiovascular events. There was no clear correlation between baseline hypertension and its development during study treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

In this exploratory sub-analysis in AVADO, bevacizumab plus docetaxel showed efficacy in elderly patients similar to the overall study population. There were no unexpected safety signals in patients aged 65 years or older.

SEOM clinical guidelines for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer

Patients with metastatic breast cancer have a wide number of treatment options, including medical, surgical, and supportive care measures. Treatment decisions are based in predictive and prognostic factors and the informed choice of the patients. SEOM has elaborated these guidelines with evidence-based recommendations for the diagnostic work-up, treatment (chemotherapy, endocrine therapy and targeted therapies) and supportive care for the management of these patients.

How Long Have I Got? Estimating Typical, Best-Case, and Worst-Case Scenarios for Patients Starting First-Line Chemotherapy for Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review of Recent Randomized Trials

Purpose

To estimate scenarios for survival for women with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) who are starting chemotherapy.

Patients and Methods

We sought randomized, first-line chemotherapy trials for MBC published from 1999 to 2009. We recorded median progression-free survival (PFS) and median overall survival (OS) and extracted the following percentiles (represented scenario) from each OS curve: 90th (worst-case), 75th (lower-typical), 25th (upper-typical), and 10th (best-case). We also estimated these scenarios for each OS curve by multiplying its median by four simple multiples: 0.25 (worst-case), 0.5 (lower-typical), 2 (upper-typical), and 3 (best-case). Estimates were deemed accurate if they were within 0.75 to 1.33 times the actual value.

Results

From 36 trials (13,083 women), the mean for median PFS was 7.6 months (interquartile range [IQR], 6.0 to 9.0 months), the mean for median OS was 21.7 months (IQR,18.2 to 24.0 months), and the mean for the ratio of median OS to median PFS was 3.0 (IQR, 2.4 to 3.5). The mean for each OS scenario was worst-case, 6.3 months (IQR, 4.8 to 7.5 months); lower-typical, 11.9 months (IQR, 9.9 to 13.2 months); upper-typical, 36.2 months (IQR, 31.1 to 41.3 months); and best-case, 55.8 months (IQR, 47.5 to 60.2 months). Simple multiples of the median gave accurate estimates of the worst-case scenario in 73% of OS curves, lower-typical in 97%, upper-typical in 95%, and best-case in 96%. OS was longer in trials with higher proportions of estrogen receptor–positive tumors (P = .001) and in trials of trastuzumab-treated human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive tumors (P = .001).

Conclusion

Simple multiples of an OS curve's median can accurately estimate typical (half to double the median), best-case (triple the median), and worst-case (one quarter of the median) scenarios for survival.

Quality-of-life measurement in randomized clinical trials in breast cancer: an updated systematic review (2001-2009)

BACKGROUND

Quality-of-life (QOL) measurement is often incorporated into randomized clinical trials in breast cancer. The objectives of this systematic review were to assess the incremental effect of QOL measurement in addition to traditional endpoints (such as disease-free survival or toxic effects) on clinical decision making and to describe the extent of QOL reporting in randomized clinical trials of breast cancer.

METHODS

We conducted a search of MEDLINE for English-language articles published between May-June 2001 and October 2009 that reported: 1) a randomized clinical trial of breast cancer treatment (excluding prevention trials), including surgery, chemotherapy, hormone therapy, symptom control, follow-up, and psychosocial intervention; 2) the use of a patient self-report measure that examined general QOL, cancer-specific or breast cancer-specific QOL or psychosocial variables; and 3) documentation of QOL outcomes. All selected trials were evaluated by two reviewers, and data were extracted using a standardized form for each variable. Data are presented in descriptive table formats.

RESULTS

A total of 190 randomized clinical trials were included in this review. The two most commonly used questionnaires were the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QOL Questionnaire and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy/Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy. More than 80% of the included trials reported the name(s) of the instrument(s), trial and QOL sample sizes, the timing of QOL assessment, and the statistical method. Statistical power for QOL was reported in 19.4% of the biomedical intervention trials and in 29.9% of the nonbiomedical intervention trials. The percentage of trials in which QOL findings influenced clinical decision making increased from 15.2% in the previous review to 30.1% in this updated review for trials of biomedical interventions but decreased from 95.0% to 63.2% for trials of nonbiomedical interventions. Discordance between reviewers ranged from 1.1% for description of the statistical method (yes vs no) to 19.9% for the sample size for QOL.

CONCLUSION

Reporting of QOL methodology could be improved.

Filling in the gaps: reporting of concurrent supportive care therapies in breast cancer chemotherapy trials

BACKGROUND

Supportive care interventions can have a substantial impact on side effects of chemotherapy. Consequently, accurate reporting of such interventions is essential when interpreting clinical trial results. This study determined the prevalence and quality of reporting of supportive care treatment for common chemotherapy-induced toxicities in phase III, breast cancer chemotherapy trials.

METHODS

A systematic review of phase III trials of breast cancer trials incorporating chemotherapy published in the last 5 years was undertaken. Trials were identified through MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, and the Cochrane Library. Supportive treatments evaluated were use of antiemetics, colony-stimulating growth factors, and antibiotics. Reporting quality was rated as "good", "fair", "poor", or "absent" using predetermined criteria.

RESULTS

Sixty-two trials met inclusion criteria. In 41 studies (66%), details regarding prophylactic antiemetic treatment were not provided. Growth factor use was not reported in 20 trials (32%). Instructions for the use of prophylactic antibiotics were absent in 45 trials (72%).

CONCLUSION

There are significant deficiencies in reporting of use of prophylactic supportive care agents in breast cancer trials. Omission of supportive care instructions may impact substantially on patient management and health care system expenditure. Recommendations for the type, dose, and frequency of supportive care drugs should be provided and reported on in trials.

The Role of Combination Chemotherapy in the Treatment of Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer

Metastatic breast cancer (MBC) is usually not curable, and the primary goals of treatment are thus to control disease and symptoms, maintain quality of life, and prolong life while minimizing toxicity. Chemotherapy is still an important treatment option in MBC, and the decision whether polychemotherapy is preferable to sequential monochemotherapy is under debate. Data are quite consistent in that response rates and time to progression are significantly increased with combination chemotherapy compared to the use of a single agent in MBC patients. Data regarding overall survival with polychemotherapy are not conclusive; however, frequently this approach was associated with increased treatment toxicity and decreased quality of life. Nonetheless, in patients with symptomatic or acute, life-threatening disease, where maximum and quick tumor remission is important, polychemotherapy should be the preferred approach. Furthermore, since some of the newer combination regimens seem to increase toxicity only slightly and substantially prolong time to progression, this approach may also be an option in patients without symptomatic disease.

Usefulness of chemotherapy beyond the second line for metastatic breast cancer: a therapeutic challenge

PURPOSE

Several lines of chemotherapy can be proposed for patients with metastatic breast cancer, but beyond the second line, agreement is lacking concerning the most appropriate therapeutic strategy.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of the files of 162 patients, who had received at least 3 lines of chemotherapy (CT3) for metastatic breast cancer during a 5-year period (2000-2004), in order to analyze management practices and search for factors affecting survival from CT3 and predictive factors of non-progressive disease (NPD) after CT3.

RESULTS

Multivariate analysis identified seven factors which had a positive influence on survival from CT3 (SBR grade I, absence of adjuvant hormone therapy, free interval >or=2 years, absence of cerebromeningeal metastasis before CT, unique focus at initiation of CT3, use of polychemotherapy for CT2, and complete response to CT1 or CT2) and two predictive factors of NPD (histology and drug group used for CT3).

CONCLUSIONS

These factors should help determine the appropriate strategy for proposing a third line of chemotherapy.

International guidelines for management of metastatic breast cancer: combination vs sequential single-agent chemotherapy

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.

Prognostic value of serum vascular endothelial growth factor in Egyptian females with metastatic triple negative breast cancer

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this work was to explore the value of serum vascular endothelial growth factor-A (VEGF-A) in patients with metastatic triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) treated with chemotherapy. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points were response rate (RR), progression-free survival (PFS) and VEGF-A level at baseline, mid-therapy and at the end of therapy.

DESIGN AND METHODS

Female patients aged 18 years or above with histologically proven metastatic TNBC were included. Serum VEFG-A levels were measured at baseline, after the 3rd and 6th cycles of FAC chemotherapy regimen (Fluorourcil, Adriamycin, and Cyclophamide).

RESULTS

The overall RR was 57%. The median PFS and OS were 7 and 11.2 months, respectively (95% CI: 4.3-9.7 and 3.8-18.5 months, respectively). Patients whose disease progressed despite therapy had a significantly higher baseline VEGF-A level than those who did not progress. VEGF-A level did not drop with continuation of therapy. Patients with high VEGF-A level had a significantly lower PFS but not OS than patients with low levels.

CONCLUSION

The outcome of metastatic TNBC is poor with FAC chemotherapy regimen. Alternative chemotherapeutic regimens and novel therapeutic approaches including targeting of VEGF and/or its receptors are warranted.

Optimal use of taxanes in metastatic breast cancer

The role of taxanes in the treatment of breast cancer is becoming increasingly important. In clinical practice, the taxanes are now standard therapy in both early-stage and metastatic breast cancer. Since the 1990s, multiple randomized clinical trials have been evaluating the efficacy of taxanes in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. These trials have included treatment with taxanes alone or in combination with other chemotherapeutic agents. Pre-existing published guidelines for the use of taxanes in the management of metastatic breast cancer are available. The mandate of the Alberta Cancer Board Provincial Breast Tumour Group Guideline Panel was to consider and adapt the recommendations of the existing guidelines and to develop de novo guidelines to account for current evidence. For this task, the panel used the ADAPTE process, which is a systematic process of guideline adaptation developed by the ADAPTE Collaboration.The recommendations formulated by the panel included the identification of taxane regimens that could be offered in anthracycline-naïve patients, anthracycline-pretreated or -resistant patients, and patients overexpressing the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2. Potential toxicities and benefits in terms of time to progression, progression-free survival, overall survival, and quality of life were also considered.

Sequential vinorelbine–capecitabine followed by docetaxel in advanced breast cancer: long-term results of a pilot phase II trial

PURPOSE

To evaluate the response rate of the combination of capecitabine (C) and vinorelbine (V) followed by Docetaxel (D) in the 1st line treatment of advanced and metastatic breast cancer patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with measurable disease and no prior chemotherapy in advanced disease were eligible. Pts received V 25 mg/m(2) on day 1 and 8 in combination with C 825 mg/m(2) twice a day from day 1 to 14 every 3 weeks for four cycles followed by 12 consecutive weeks of D 25 mg/m(2)/w.

RESULTS

Between March 2002 and November 2003, 40 patients were enrolled. Median age was 57 years. Of patients, 77.5% of pts had visceral involvement and 32.5% had more than two metastatic sites. In the adjuvant setting, 62.5% received anthracycline and 10% Taxanes. In the intent-to-treat population, an overall objective response was observed in 25 patients (62.5, 95% CI, 45.8-77.27) and stable disease in 5 (12.5%). Median time till progression (TTP) was 12.3 months (range 1.5-48; 95% CI, 10.05-14.54). The median survival was 35.7 months (range 2-47). Reported grade 3-4 toxicities under Navcap were neutropenia (4 pts), anemia (1 pt), thrombopenia (1 pt) and febrile neutropenia (3 pts). Reported grade 3-4 toxicities under weekly Docetaxel were neutropenia (1 pt), thrombopenia (2 pts), leucopenia (1 pt) and anemia (1 pt).

CONCLUSION

The sequential use of Navcap followed by weekly Docetaxel demonstrated an interesting efficacy with a prolonged TTP and OS and warrants further evaluation.

Advanced breast cancer: chemotherapy phase III trials that change a standard

At the present time, there is not a standard regimen in upfront metastatic setting for breast cancer. A wide variety of regimens which includes anthracyclines, taxanes, gemcitabine or capecitabine are currently used, however, there is evidence to support the use of many of these drugs in early breast cancer and consequently limiting their use in first line treatment. The aim of this review is to evaluate every randomized phase III trials conducted in first line metastatic breast cancer. For this reason, all randomized studies that evaluated the role of chemotherapy in advanced breast cancer were analyzed and classified according to their protocol design. So far, sixteen major randomized clinical trials have evaluated the role of chemotherapy as front line in metastatic breast cancer. Some of them have analyzed a different anthracyclines-based regimen as the control arm versus new combinations or new drugs. In others, the aim is to evaluate the most effective therapy after progression to an adjuvant anthracyclines-containing regimen. The suitability of the control arm, the prospective definition of patient's subgroups as well as the statistical methodology have been taken into account.

Achievements in systemic therapies in the pregenomic era in metastatic breast cancer

Over the last decades, the introduction of several new agents into clinical practice has significantly improved disease control and obtained some, albeit rare, survival benefits in metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Despite these results, the choice of treatment for the majority of patients is still empirically based, since the only two predictive factors with level 1 evidence for clinical use are hormonal receptor status for endocrine therapy and HER-2 status for trastuzumab therapy. Important improvements in the endocrine therapy of both pre- and postmenopausal women with hormone-responsive disease have been achieved. For premenopausal women, ovarian function suppression with luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analogs combined with tamoxifen has become the standard treatment, although aromatase inhibitors plus ovarian function suppression are under evaluation. In postmenopausal patients, aromatase inhibitors have proved to be superior to standard endocrine therapies in either first- or second-line treatment and a novel antiestrogen compound, fulvestrant, has been introduced in clinical practice. Chemotherapy remains the treatment of choice for hormone unresponsive or resistant patients. Anthracyclines and taxanes have been used either alone or in combination as first-line chemotherapy, but with the more frequent use of these agents in the adjuvant setting, new standards are needed for first-line chemotherapy, and new and more efficacious treatments are required. In the subgroup of patients with tumors that overexpress HER-2, the use of trastuzumab alone or in combination with chemotherapy has modified the natural history of these tumors, even if only about one out of two patients obtains a clinical response. In this review we summarize the main achievements and the currently available treatment options for patients with MBC.

Combined therapy of an established, highly aggressive breast cancer in mice with paclitaxel and a unique DNA-based cell vaccine

Here, we describe the enhanced benefits of treating a highly aggressive breast cancer in mice with a combination of paclitaxel and immunization with a unique DNA-based cell vaccine. An adenocarcinoma was isolated from a spontaneous neoplasm that arose in the mammary gland of a C3H/He mouse (H-2(k)) (SB5b cells). The vaccine was prepared by transfer of genomic DNA-fragments (25 kb) from the breast cancer cells into a mouse fibroblast cell line (LM), modified to enhance its immunogenic properties. As the transferred DNA is integrated, and replicated as the recipient cells divide, the vaccine could be prepared from relatively small numbers of cancer cells (10(7) = 4 mm tumor). SB5b cells were injected into the mammary fat pad of naïve C3H/He mice, which are highly susceptible to the growth of the cancer cells. When the tumors reached 3 mm, the mice were injected s.c. with a noncurative dose of paclitaxel. Six days later, when immune competence returned, the mice received the first of 3 weekly s.c. injections of the vaccine. The combined therapy induced robust cellular immunity to the breast cancer, mediated by CD8+ and NK/LAK cells, which resulted in prolonged survival. The immunity was specific, as immunization with a vaccine prepared by transfer of DNA from B16 melanoma cells into the fibroblasts failed to induce immunity to the breast cancer. This type of vaccine raises the possibility that an analogous strategy could be used in the treatment of breast cancer patients at an early stage of the disease.

Extending survival with chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer

Metastatic breast cancer (MBC) remains essentially incurable, and goals of therapy include the palliation of symptoms, delay of disease progression, and prolongation of overall survival time without negatively impacting quality of life. Anthracycline and taxane-based therapies have traditionally shown the highest degree of activity in MBC. Though numerous randomized clinical trials have shown improvements in overall response rates, few have found clear survival benefits. In recent years, however, there has been a small but growing series of clinical trials demonstrating modest, but meaningful survival advantages in metastatic disease. A common feature in many of these trials has been the use of a taxane, and more recently, a taxane combined with an antimetabolite. In addition, the development of targeted biologic agents active against MBC, such as trastuzumab and bevacizumab, has demonstrated great potential for enhancing the effects of chemotherapy and producing meaningful survival improvements. The role of the taxanes, antimetabolites, and biologics in extending survival in MBC is discussed.

Concomitant Versus Sequential Chemotherapy in the Treatment of Early-Stage and Metastatic Breast Cancer

Breast cancer is one of the most common malignancies in the Western world. Chemotherapy improves disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) rates in women with early-stage breast cancer. Although anthracycline- and taxane-based regimens are considered most effective, the optimal way to administer them (sequentially vs. in combination) remains in question. In metastatic breast cancer, cytotoxic chemotherapy is the treatment of choice for patients with hormone receptor-negative tumors or rapidly progressive disease, regardless of hormone receptor status. The combination of chemotherapy and trastuzumab improves DFS and OS rates in patients with HER2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer. In patients with HER2-negative tumors, the choice of single-agent sequential versus combination chemotherapy should be individualized. Sequential chemotherapy can produce OS rates similar to those of combination regimens and avoids the overlapping toxic effects of combination chemotherapy. However, response rates are generally higher and time to progression is longer with combination chemotherapy. At present, no predictive markers of response to chemotherapy are clinically useful in making treatment decisions for individual patients. Prospective studies are needed in order to validate the clinical utility of novel markers of response to specific chemotherapies and/or various schedules of administration.