Toxicity Assessment of a Phase III Study Evaluating FEC-Doc and FEC-Doc Combined with Gemcitabine as an Adjuvant Treatment for High-Risk Early Breast Cancer: the SUCCESS-A Trial

Bone-modifying agents for reducing bone loss in women with early and locally advanced breast cancer: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Bisphosphonates and receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa B ligand (RANKL)-inhibitors are amongst the bone-modifying agents used as supportive treatment in women with breast cancer who do not have bone metastases. These agents aim to reduce bone loss and the risk of fractures. Bisphosphonates have demonstrated survival benefits, particularly in postmenopausal women.

OBJECTIVES

To assess and compare the effects of different bone-modifying agents as supportive treatment to reduce bone mineral density loss and osteoporotic fractures in women with breast cancer without bone metastases and generate a ranking of treatment options using network meta-analyses (NMAs).

SEARCH METHODS

We identified studies by electronically searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase until January 2023. We searched various trial registries and screened abstracts of conference proceedings and reference lists of identified trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing different bisphosphonates and RANKL-inihibitors with each other or against no further treatment or placebo for women with breast cancer without bone metastases.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies and certainty of evidence using GRADE. Outcomes were bone mineral density, quality of life, overall fractures, overall survival and adverse events. We conducted NMAs and generated treatment rankings.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-seven trials (35,163 participants) fulfilled our inclusion criteria; 34 trials (33,793 participants) could be considered in the NMA (8 different treatment options). Bone mineral density We estimated that the bone mineral density of participants with no treatment/placebo measured as total T-score was -1.34. Evidence from the NMA (9 trials; 1166 participants) suggests that treatment with ibandronate (T-score -0.77; MD 0.57, 95% CI -0.05 to 1.19) may slightly increase bone mineral density (low certainty) and treatment with zoledronic acid (T-score -0.45; MD 0.89, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.16) probably slightly increases bone mineral density compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty). Risedronate (T-score -1.08; MD 0.26, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.84) may result in little to no difference compared to no treatment/placebo (low certainty). We are uncertain whether alendronate (T-score 2.36; MD 3.70, 95% CI -2.01 to 9.41) increases bone mineral density compared to no treatment/placebo (very low certainty). Quality of life No quantitative analyses could be performed for quality of life, as only three studies reported this outcome. All three studies showed only minimal differences between the respective interventions examined. Overall fracture rate We estimated that 70 of 1000 participants with no treatment/placebo had fractures. Evidence from the NMA (16 trials; 19,492 participants) indicates that treatment with clodronate or ibandronate (42 of 1000; RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.92; 40 of 1000; RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.86, respectively) decreases the number of fractures compared to no treatment/placebo (high certainty). Denosumab or zoledronic acid (51 of 1000; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.01; 55 of 1000; RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.11, respectively) probably slightly decreases the number of fractures; and risedronate (39 of 1000; RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.16) probably decreases the number of fractures compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty). Pamidronate (106 of 1000; RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.75 to 3.06) probably increases the number of fractures compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty). Overall survival We estimated that 920 of 1000 participants with no treatment/placebo survived overall. Evidence from the NMA (17 trials; 30,991 participants) suggests that clodronate (924 of 1000; HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.17), denosumab (927 of 1000; HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.21), ibandronate (915 of 1000; HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.34) and zoledronic acid (925 of 1000; HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.14) may result in little to no difference regarding overall survival compared to no treatment/placebo (low certainty). Additionally, we are uncertain whether pamidronate (905 of 1000; HR 1.20, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.78) decreases overall survival compared to no treatment/placebo (very low certainty). Osteonecrosis of the jaw We estimated that 1 of 1000 participants with no treatment/placebo developed osteonecrosis of the jaw. Evidence from the NMA (12 trials; 23,527 participants) suggests that denosumab (25 of 1000; RR 24.70, 95% CI 9.56 to 63.83), ibandronate (6 of 1000; RR 5.77, 95% CI 2.04 to 16.35) and zoledronic acid (9 of 1000; RR 9.41, 95% CI 3.54 to 24.99) probably increases the occurrence of osteonecrosis of the jaw compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty). Additionally, clodronate (3 of 1000; RR 2.65, 95% CI 0.83 to 8.50) may increase the occurrence of osteonecrosis of the jaw compared to no treatment/placebo (low certainty). Renal impairment We estimated that 14 of 1000 participants with no treatment/placebo developed renal impairment. Evidence from the NMA (12 trials; 22,469 participants) suggests that ibandronate (28 of 1000; RR 1.98, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.88) probably increases the occurrence of renal impairment compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty). Zoledronic acid (21 of 1000; RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.58) probably increases the occurrence of renal impairment while clodronate (12 of 1000; RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.39) and denosumab (11 of 1000; RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.19) probably results in little to no difference regarding the occurrence of renal impairment compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When considering bone-modifying agents for managing bone loss in women with early or locally advanced breast cancer, one has to balance between efficacy and safety. Our findings suggest that bisphosphonates (excluding alendronate and pamidronate) or denosumab compared to no treatment or placebo likely results in increased bone mineral density and reduced fracture rates. Our survival analysis that included pre and postmenopausal women showed little to no difference regarding overall survival. These treatments may lead to more adverse events. Therefore, forming an overall judgement of the best ranked bone-modifying agent is challenging. More head-to-head comparisons, especially comparing denosumab with any bisphosphonate, are needed to address gaps and validate the findings of this review.

Gemcitabine as adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with high-risk early breast cancer-results from the randomized phase III SUCCESS-A trial

Background

When chemotherapy is indicated in patients with early breast cancer, regimens that contain anthracyclines and taxanes are established standard treatments. Gemcitabine has shown promising effects on the response and prognosis in patients with metastatic breast cancer. The SUCCESS-A trial (NCT02181101) examined the addition of gemcitabine to a standard chemotherapy regimen in high-risk early breast cancer patients.

Methods

A total of 3754 patients with at least one of the following characteristics were randomly assigned to one of the two treatment arms: nodal positivity, tumor grade 3, age ≤ 35 years, tumor larger than 2 cm, or negative hormone receptor status. The treatment arms received either three cycles of 5-fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide, followed by three cycles of docetaxel (FEC → Doc); or three cycles of FEC followed by three cycles of docetaxel and gemcitabine (FEC → Doc/Gem). The primary study aim was disease-free survival (DFS), and the main secondary objectives were overall survival (OS) and safety.

Results

No differences were observed in the 5-year DFS or OS between FEC → Doc and FEC → Doc/Gem. The hazard ratio was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.78 to 1.12; P = 0.47) for DFS and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.74 to 1.19; P = 0.60) for OS. For patients treated with FEC → Doc and FEC → Doc/Gem, the 5-year probabilities of DFS were 86.6% and 87.2%, and the 5-year probabilities of OS were 92.8% and 92.5%, respectively.

Conclusion

Adding gemcitabine to a standard chemotherapy does not improve the outcomes in patients with high-risk early breast cancer and should therefore not be included in the adjuvant treatment setting.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02181101 and EU Clinical Trials Register EudraCT 2005-000490-21. Registered September 2005.

VEGF-A165b levels are reduced in breast cancer patients at primary diagnosis but increase after completion of cancer treatment

The antiangiogenic splice variant VEGF-A165b is downregulated in a variety of cancer entities, but little is known so far about circulating plasma levels. The present analysis addresses this question and examines circulating VEGF-A/VEGF-A165b levels in a collective of female high-risk breast cancer patients over the course of treatment. Within the SUCCES-A trial 205 patients were recruited after having received primary breast surgery. Using ELISA VEGF-A/VEGF-A165b concentrations were determined and correlated to clinical characteristics (1) before adjuvant chemotherapy, (2) four weeks and (3) two years after therapy and compared to healthy controls (n = 107). VEGF_165b levels were significantly elevated after completion of chemotherapy. Within the breast cancer cohort, VEGF-A165b levels increased two years after completion of chemotherapy. VEGF-A plasma concentrations were significantly elevated in the breast cancer cohort at all examined time points and decreased after treatment. VEGF-A levels two years after chemotherapy correlated with increased cancer related mortality, no such correlation could be found between VEGF-A165b and the examined clinical characteristics. Compared to controls, VEGF-A/VEGF-A165b ratios were decreased in patients before and after chemotherapy. Our data suggests that circulating VEGF-A165b is significantly reduced in women with primary breast cancer at time of diagnosis; furthermore, levels change during adjuvant treatment.

Drug Combinations in Breast Cancer Therapy

Breast cancer therapy involves a multidisciplinary approach comprising surgery, radiotherapy, neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy. Effective therapy of breast cancer requires maximum therapeutic efficacy, with minimal undesirable effects to ensure a good quality of life for patients. The carefully selected combination of therapeutic interventions provides patients with the opportunity to derive maximum benefit from therapy while minimizing or eliminating recurrence, resistance and toxic effects, as well as ensuring that patients have a good quality of life. This review discusses therapeutic options for breast cancer treatments and various combinations that had been previously exploited. The review will also give an insight into the potential application of the nanotechnology platform for codelivery of therapeutics in breast cancer therapy.

Quality of life during and after adjuvant anthracycline-taxane-based chemotherapy with or without Gemcitabine in high-risk early breast cancer: results of the SUCCESS A trial

PURPOSE

In high-risk early breast cancer, adjuvant taxane-Gemcitabine combinations result in a recurrence-free survival similar to single-agent taxanes. However, haematologic toxicities and need for dose reductions are more frequent in combinations. Which option ultimately provides a better quality of life (QoL) is unknown. We compared the QoL curves before, during, and up to one year after three cycles of Fluorouracil-epirubicin-cyclophosphamide followed by three cycles of Docetaxel-Gemcitabine or Docetaxel.

METHODS

Overall, 3691 women with recent R0-resection of a primary epithelial breast cancer participated in the nationwide SUCCESS A clinical trial. The centres sent QoL questionnaires of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer before and up to 15 months after randomisation to Docetaxel-Gemcitabine versus Docetaxel. Multilevel analysis by chemotherapy arm estimated the QoL time curves, questionnaire return, and dropout.

RESULTS

The combination caused one-point higher global QoL (95% confidence ±1; p = 0.05) and 1.1 lower odds of adherence to the outcome (95% confidence 1.0-1.1; p = 0.23) than the monotherapy. In both groups, a 10-point decrease during therapy preceded a 16-point increase after chemotherapy (p < 0.001). The secondary QoL outcomes showed transient superiority of the combination at the end of chemotherapy. Discontinuation from chemotherapy and its reasons were equal in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

While patients perceive a one-point QoL difference as meaningless, a six-point increase is clinically relevant for them. That is, both regimens cause the same relevant long-term QoL improvement. With the similar recurrence-free survival, the lower toxicity, and the shorter chemotherapy duration in mind, taxanes without Gemcitabine are the preference. This challenges previous recommendations supporting combinations.

SABCS 2017 pathology: from bench to bedside

The 40th International San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium offered a multifaceted platform for the presentation of several innovative therapeutic approaches. The results of these preclinical and clinical studies provided insight into the development of novel therapy concepts from the laboratory bench to the bedside of breast cancer patients. One main focus of last year’s symposium was the search for synergisms and opportunities for collaboration between basic research scientists and investigators in drug development. Highlights of these topics included preclinical data on selective estrogen receptor covalent antagonists (SERCAs), the discovery of immune-modulating effects of demethylating agents as well as the exact characterization and risk assessment of BRCA2 mutations of previously unknown significance. Pathological advances aimed at the molecular understanding of intratumoral heterogeneity and the evolution of lobular breast cancer. Beyond preclinical discoveries at the molecular level, clinical studies provided evidence on the duration of adjuvant bisphosphonate treatment and the use of the EndoPredict multigenomic assay to predict response to neoadjuvant chemo- and endocrine therapy. The SUCCESS A study reported that the prolonged adjuvant administration of zoledronic acid for 5 years did not improve patient survival after chemotherapy. A translational analysis of the ABCSG 34 trial revealed that the EndoPredict multigenomic assay could identify patients who do not benefit from neoadjuvant endocrine or chemotherapy. These recent advances are likely to promote individualized breast cancer care.

Use of Granulocyte-colony Stimulating Factor During Chemotherapy and Its Association With CA27.29 and Circulating Tumor Cells-Results From the SUCCESS A Trial

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the effect of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) treatment during adjuvant chemotherapy on prognostic markers. The present study explored the association between G-CSF and changes in cancer antigen (CA)27.29 and circulating tumor cell (CTC) levels during therapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 3754 node-positive or high-risk node-negative early-stage breast cancer patients were treated within the SUCCESS-A trial (simultaneous study of gemcitabine-docetaxel combination adjuvant treatment, as well as extended bisphosphonate and surveillance-trial). CA27.29 and CTCs were determined before the start and within 6 weeks after the end of chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Overall, 1324 of the 2646 patients (50.0%) available for analysis had ≥ 1 G-CSF applications during chemotherapy. G-CSF application was significantly associated with CA27.29 status before and after chemotherapy (χ² = 30.6, df = 3; P < .001), because 238 patients (18.0%) with G-CSF treatment but only 146 (11.0%) without G-CSF treatment switched from a negative CA27.29 status before to a positive CA27.29 status after chemotherapy. In addition, patients with G-CSF application showed a significantly greater increase in CA27.29 levels after chemotherapy compared with patients without any G-CSF application during chemotherapy (Mann-Whitney U test; Z = -7.81, P < .001). No significant association was found between G-CSF application and CTC status before or after chemotherapy (χ² = 1.2, df = 3; P = .75).

CONCLUSION

Cautious interpretation is needed regarding elevated levels of MUC-1-derived tumor markers such as CA27.29 shortly after adjuvant chemotherapy when G-CSF has been given, because G-CSF treatment was associated with increased CA27.29 levels after chemotherapy.