Randomized trial of high-dose adjuvant chemotherapy with autologous hematopoietic stem-cell support versus standard-dose chemotherapy in breast cancer patients with 10 or more positive lymph nodes: overall survival after 6 years of follow-up

Treating Metastatic Brain Cancers With Stem Cells

Stem cell therapy may present an effective treatment for metastatic brain cancer and glioblastoma. Here we posit the critical role of a leaky blood-brain barrier (BBB) as a key element for the development of brain metastases, specifically melanoma. By reviewing the immunological and inflammatory responses associated with BBB damage secondary to tumoral activity, we identify the involvement of this pathological process in the growth and formation of metastatic brain cancers. Likewise, we evaluate the hypothesis of regenerating impaired endothelial cells of the BBB and alleviating the damaged neurovascular unit to attenuate brain metastasis, using the endothelial progenitor cell (EPC) phenotype of bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells. Specifically, there is a need to evaluate the efficacy for stem cell therapy to repair disruptions in the BBB and reduce inflammation in the brain, thereby causing attenuation of metastatic brain cancers. To establish the viability of stem cell therapy for the prevention and treatment of metastatic brain tumors, it is crucial to demonstrate BBB repair through augmentation of vasculogenesis and angiogenesis. BBB disruption is strongly linked to metastatic melanoma, worsens neuroinflammation during metastasis, and negatively influences the prognosis of metastatic brain cancer. Using stem cell therapy to interrupt inflammation secondary to this leaky BBB represents a paradigm-shifting approach for brain cancer treatment. In this review article, we critically assess the advantages and disadvantages of using stem cell therapy for brain metastases and glioblastoma.

Long-Term Outcome of Inflammatory Breast Cancer Compared to Non-Inflammatory Breast Cancer in the Setting of High-Dose Chemotherapy with Autologous Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation

Introduction: Inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) is a rare aggressive form of breast cancer. It is well known that the long-term survival and progression-free survival of IBC are worse than that of non-IBC. We report the long term outcomes of patients with IBC and non-IBC who had undergone high-dose chemotherapy (HDC) with autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT).

Methods: All 3387 patients with IBC or non-IBC who underwent HDC with AHCT between1990-2002 and registered with CIBMTR were included in this analysis. Transplant-related mortality (TRM), disease relapse/progression, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared between the two cohorts. Multivariate Cox regression model was used to determine the independent impact of stage on outcomes.

Results: 527 patients with IBC and 2,860 patients with non-IBC were included; the median age at transplantation (47 vs 46 years old) and median follow-up period in the 2 groups (167 vs 168 months) were similar. The most common conditioning regimen was cyclophosphamide and carboplatin based in both groups (54% in IBC and 50% in non-IBC). AHCT was well tolerated in both groups. TRM was similar in both groups (one year TRM was 2% for IBC and 3% for non-IBC, p=0.16). The most common cause of death was disease progression or relapse (81% in IBC and 75% in non-IBC). The median survival for both IBC and non-IBC was the same at 40 months. The PFS at 10 years was 27% (95% CI: 23-31%) for IBC and 24% (95% CI: 22-26%) for non-IBC (p=0.21), and the OS at 10 years was 31% (95% CI: 27-35%) for IBC and 28% (95% CI: 26-30%) for non-IBC (p=0.16). In univariate analysis, patients with stage III IBC and no active diseases at transplantation had lower PFS and OS than that in non-IBC. In multivariate analysis, controlling for age, disease status at AHCT, hormonal receptor status, time from diagnosis to AHCT, and performance status at AHCT, patients with stage III IBC had higher mortality (HR 1.16, 95% CI: 1-1.34, p= 0.0459), worse PFS (HR: 1.17, 95% CI: 1.01-1.36, p= 0.0339) and higher risk of disease relapse/progression (HR: 1.24, 95% CI: 1.06-1.45, p= 0.0082) as compared to stage III non-IBC. Amongst all patients a higher stage disease was associated with worse PFS, OS and disease relapse/progression.

Conclusions: Long-term outcomes of stage III IBC patients who underwent AHCT were poorer than that in non-IBC patients confirming that the poor prognosis of IBC even in the setting of HDC with AHCT.

High-dose chemotherapy and autologous bone marrow or stem cell transplantation versus conventional chemotherapy for women with early poor prognosis breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Overall survival rates are disappointing for women with early poor prognosis breast cancer. Autologous transplantation of bone marrow or peripheral stem cells (in which the woman is both donor and recipient) has been considered a promising technique because it permits use of much higher doses of chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness and safety of high-dose chemotherapy and autograft (either autologous bone marrow or stem cell transplantation) with conventional chemotherapy for women with early poor prognosis breast cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1966 to October 2015), EMBASE (1980 to October 2015), the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Search Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov on the 21 October 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing high-dose chemotherapy and autograft (bone marrow transplant or stem cell rescue) versus chemotherapy without autograft for women with early poor prognosis breast cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors selected RCTs, independently extracted data and assessed risks of bias. We combined data using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model to calculate pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE methods. Outcomes were survival rates, toxicity and quality of life.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 RCTs of 5600 women randomised to receive high-dose chemotherapy and autograft (bone marrow transplant or stem cell rescue) versus chemotherapy without autograft for women with early poor prognosis breast cancer. The studies were at low risk of bias in most areas.There is high-quality evidence that high-dose chemotherapy does not increase the likelihood of overall survival at any stage of follow-up (at three years: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.10, 3 RCTs, 795 women, I² = 56%; at five years: RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.04, 9 RCTs, 3948 women, I² = 0%; at six years: RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.08, 1 RCT, 511 women; at eight years: RR1.17, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.43, 1 RCT, 344 women; at 12 years: RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.42, 1 RCT, 382 women).There is high-quality evidence that high-dose chemotherapy improves the likelihood of event-free survival at three years (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.34, 3 RCTs, 795 women, I² = 56%) but this effect was no longer apparent at longer duration of follow-up (at five years: RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.09, 9 RCTs, 3948 women, I² = 14%; at six years RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.24, 1 RCT, 511 women; at eight years: RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.64, 1 RCT, 344 women; at 12 years: RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.45, 1 RCT, 382 women).Treatment-related deaths were much more frequent in the high-dose arm (RR 7.97, 95% CI 3.99 to 15.92, 14 RCTs, 5600 women, I² = 12%, high-quality evidence) and non-fatal morbidity was also more common and more severe in the high-dose group. There was little or no difference between the groups in the incidence of second cancers at four to nine years' median follow-up (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.73, 7 RCTs, 3423 women, I² = 0%, high-quality evidence). Women in the high-dose group reported significantly worse quality-of-life scores immediately after treatment, but there were few statistically significant differences between the groups by one year.The primary studies were at low risk of bias in most areas, and the evidence was assessed using GRADE methods and rated as high quality for all comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-quality evidence of increased treatment-related mortality and little or no increase in survival by using high-dose chemotherapy with autograft for women with early poor prognosis breast cancer.

Mobilization of Peripheral Blood Stem Cells Using Regimen Combining Docetaxel with Granulocyte Colony-stimulating Factor in Breast Cancer Patients

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the mobilization of peripheral blood hematopoietic stem cells by combining docetaxel with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in breast cancer patients.

METHODS

A total of 57 breast cancer patients were treated with docetaxel 120 mg/m(2). When the white blood cell (WBC) count decreased to 1.0×10(9)/L, patients were given G-CSF 5 μg/kg daily by subcutaneous injection until the end of apheresis. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells (MNC) were isolated by Cobe Spectra Apheresis System. The percentage of CD34(+) cell was assayed by flow cytometry.

RESULTS

At a median 6 of days (range 3-8) after the administration of docetaxel, the median WBC count decreased to 1.08×10(9)/L (range 0.20-2.31). The median duration of G-CSF mobilization was 3 days (range 2-7). The MNC collection was conducted 8-12 days (median 10 days) after docetaxel treatment. The median MNC was 5.35×10(8)/kg (range 0.59-14.07), the median CD34(+) cell count was 2.43×10(6)/kg (range 0.16-16.69). The CD34(+) cell count was higher than 1.00×10(6)/kg in 47 of 57 cases (82.46%) and higher than 2.00×10(6)/kg in 36 cases (63.16%). The CD34(+) cell count was higher than 2.00×10(6)/kg in 27 collections (23.68%). The MNC count and the CD34(+) cell count were correlated with the bottom of WBC after docetaxel chemotherapy (r=0.364, 0.502, P=0.005, 0.000). The CD34(+) cell count was correlated with the MNC count (r=0.597, P=0.000). The mobilization and apheresis were well tolerated in all patients. Mild perioral numbness and numbness of hand or feet were observed in 3 cases. No serious adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

Mobilization of peripheral blood hematopoietic stem cell by combining docetaxel with G-CSF was effective and safety in breast cancer patients.

Are there candidates for high-dose chemotherapy in ovarian carcinoma?

Background

Prognosis of advanced ovarian carcinomas (AOC) remains poor with a 5-year survival of 30%. Benefit from high-dose chemotherapy (HDC) in this disease has not been demonstrated to date.

Methods

To evaluate the value of HDC as consolidation treatment after surgery and platinum/taxane-based therapy, we designed a monocentric retrospective comparative study. We used a subset approach to identify parameters associated with HDC efficacy.

Results

One hundred and three AOC patients treated with conventional chemotherapy alone (CCA) were compared to 60 patients receiving HDC plus hematopoietic stem cell support. After a median follow-up of 47.5 months there was no overall survival (OS) advantage for the HDC group in the whole population (p=0.29). Nevertheless, HDC was associated to a better outcome in young patients (≤50 years), both in term of progression-free survival (p=0.02, log-rank test) and OS (p=0.05, log-rank test). Median OS was 54.6 and 36 months in the HDC and CCA groups, respectively.

Conclusions

Although randomized trials failed to demonstrate any benefit for HDC in AOC patients, this study suggests that young patients may derive a substantial advantage from receiving it after the standard treatment. Further prospective studies are warranted to confirm this gain and to search for the biological processes associated with this improvement.

High-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation as a first-line therapy for high-risk primary breast cancer: a meta-analysis

Background and Objectives

Several trials have generated conflicting results about the results of high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (HDCT) for primary breast cancer. This meta-analysis summarizes the available evidence from all suitable studies.

Design and Methods

Prospective, randomized trials with HDCT as a first-line therapy for primary breast cancer were included in this meta-analysis. The primary outcome of interest for our analysis was survival (disease-free survival and overall survival); secondary endpoints included treatment-related mortality (TRM) and second (non-breast) cancers. We used a median age of 47, a PR positive rate of 50% and a premenopausal rate of 70% as cutoff values to complete the subgroup analyses, which were pre-planned according to the prepared protocol.

Results

Fourteen trials with 5747 patients were eligible for the meta-analysis. Compared with non-HDCT, non-significant second (non-breast) cancers (RR = 1.28; 95% CI = 0.82–1.98) and higher TRM (RR = 3.42; 95% CI = 1.32–8.86) were associated with HDCT for primary breast cancer. A significant DFS benefit of HDCT was documented (HR = 0.89; 95% CI = 0.79–0.99). No difference in OS (overall survival) was found when the studies were pooled (HR = 0.91; 95% CI = 0.82–1.00, p = 0.062). In subgroup analysis, age and hormone receptor status had a significant interaction with prolonged DFS and OS.

Conclusions

HDCT has a benefit on DFS and OS compared to SDC in some special patients with high-risk primary breast cancer.

Long-term survival after high-dose chemotherapy followed by peripheral stem cell rescue for high-risk, locally advanced/inflammatory, and metastatic breast cancer

Patients with high-risk locally advanced/inflammatory and oligometastatic (≤3 sites) breast cancer frequently relapse or experience early progression. High-dose chemotherapy combined with peripheral stem cell rescue may prolong progression-free survival/relapse-free survival (PFS/RFS) and overall survival (OS). In this study, patients initiated high-dose chemotherapy with STAMP-V (carboplatin, thiotepa, and cyclophosphamide), ACT (doxorubicin, paclitaxel, and cyclophosphamide), or tandem melphalan and STAMP-V. Eighty-six patients were diagnosed with locally advanced/inflammatory (17 inflammatory) breast cancer, and 12 were diagnosed with oligometastatic breast cancer. Median follow-up was 84 months (range, 6-136 months) for patients with locally advanced cancer and 40 months (range, 24-62 months) for those with metastatic cancer. In the patients with locally advanced cancer, 5-year RFS and OS were 53% (95% CI, 41%-63%) and 71% (95% CI, 60%-80%), respectively, hormone receptors were positive in 74%, and HER2 overexpression was seen in 23%. In multivariate analysis, hormone receptor-positive disease and lower stage were associated with better 5-year RFS (60% for ER [estrogen receptor]/PR [progesterone receptor]-positive versus 30% for ER/PR-negative; P < .01) and OS (83% for ER/PR-positive versus 38% for ER/PR-negative; P < .001). In the patients with metastatic cancer, 3-year PFS and OS were 49% (95% CI, 19%-73%) and 73% (95% CI, 38%-91%), respectively. The favorable long-term RFS/PFS and OS for high-dose chemotherapy with peripheral stem cell rescue in this selected patient population reflect the relative safety of the procedure and warrant validation in defined subgroups through prospective, randomized, multi-institutional trials.

High-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem-cell support as adjuvant therapy in breast cancer: overview of 15 randomized trials

PURPOSE

Adjuvant high-dose chemotherapy (HDC) with autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (AHST) for high-risk primary breast cancer has not been shown to prolong survival. Individual trials have had limited power to show overall benefit or benefits within subsets.

METHODS

We assembled individual patient data from 15 randomized trials that compared HDC versus control therapy without stem-cell support. Prospectively defined primary end points were relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). We compared the effect of HDC versus control by using log-rank tests and proportional hazards regression, and we adjusted for clinically relevant covariates. Subset analyses were by age, number of positive lymph nodes, tumor size, histology, hormone receptor (HmR) status, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status.

RESULTS

Of 6,210 total patients (n = 3,118, HDC; n = 3,092 control), the median age was 46 years; 69% were premenopausal, 29% were postmenopausal, and 2% were unknown menopausal status; 49.5% were HmR positive; 33.5% were HmR negative, and 17% were unknown HmR status. The median follow-up was 6 years. After analysis was adjusted for covariates, HDC was found to prolong relapse-free survival (RFS; hazard ratio [HR], 0.87; 95% CI, 0.81 to 0.93; P < .001) but not overall survival (OS; HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.02; P = .13). For OS, no covariates had statistically significant interactions with treatment effect, and no subsets evinced a significant effect of HDC. Younger patients had a significantly better RFS on HDC than did older patients.

CONCLUSION

Adjuvant HDC with AHST prolonged RFS in high-risk primary breast cancer compared with control, but this did not translate into a significant OS benefit. Whether HDC benefits patients in the context of targeted therapies is unknown.

Is there a standard type and duration of adjuvant chemotherapy for early stage breast cancer?

Adjuvant chemotherapy clearly reduces the odds of subsequent breast cancer recurrence, metastases, and mortality. There are three main areas of interest regarding adjuvant chemotherapy: (1) Should everyone receive it? (2) Is there an optimal regimen for everyone or selected individuals at this time? And (3) Can we improve on existing regimens? A multitude of investigations from around the world have addressed the three questions raised above. Increasingly we are able to identify both those patients most likely to need adjuvant chemotherapy (prognosis) and, perhaps, those most likely to benefit from it (prediction). In this regard, web-based, multi-factorial calculators, best exemplified by Adjuvant!, permit a patient and her caregiver to estimate her absolute odds of benefit from chemotherapy, thus better informing women in their assessment of benefits and risks (http://www.adjuvantonline.com/index.jsp). The answer to the next question, whether there is an optimal regimen, dose, and schedule of adjuvant chemotherapy, is, frankly, "no". Clinical research over the last four decades has strongly suggested the following principles: In summary, it is clear that adjuvant chemotherapy is beneficial for women with early stage breast cancer, and it is clear that selected regimens, based on specific agents, cumulative and cycle-specific dose, and schedule may affect the relative efficacy. It is not clear which patients are most likely to benefit from any adjuvant chemotherapy at all, or from specific strategies. Thus, at this time there is no single standard type or duration of adjuvant chemotherapy, and physicians should choose from regimens that have proven benefit as demonstrated in randomized Phase III trials.

Y-Box–Binding Protein YB-1 Identifies High-Risk Patients With Primary Breast Cancer Benefiting From Rapidly Cycled Tandem High-Dose Adjuvant Chemotherapy

Purpose

To investigate the potential of Y-box–binding protein YB-1, a multifunctional protein linked to tumor aggressiveness and multidrug resistance, to identify patients with breast cancer likely to benefit from dose-intensified chemotherapy regimens.

Patients and Methods

YB-1 was immunohistochemically determined in 211 primary tumors from the prospective, randomized West German Study Group WSG-AM-01 trial in high-risk (≥ 10 involved lymph-nodes) breast cancer (HRBC). Predictive impact of YB-1 was assessed by multivariate survival analysis, including time-varying factor-therapy interactions.

Results

At median follow-up of 61.7 months, patients receiving rapidly cycled tandem high-dose therapy (HD; two cycles [2×] epirubicin 90 mg/m2 and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2 every 14 days, followed by 2× epirubicin 90 mg/m2, cyclophosphamide 3,000 mg/m2, and thiotepa 400 mg/m2 every 21 days) had better disease-free survival (DFS; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.89) and overall survival (OS; HR = 0.59; 95% CI, 0.4 to 0.89) than those receiving conventional dose-dense chemotherapy (DD; 4× epirubicin 90 mg/m2 and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2, followed by 3× cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2, methotrexate 40 mg/m2, and fluorouracil 600 mg/m2 every 14 days). High YB-1 was associated with aggressive tumor phenotype (negative steroid hormone receptor status, positive human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 and p53 status, high MIB-1, unfavorable tumor grade) and poor OS (median 78 v 97 months; P = .01). In patients with high YB-1, HD yielded a 63-month median DFS (P = .001) and a 46-month median OS advantage (P = .002) versus DD. In multivariate models, patients with high B-1 receiving HD (v DD) had one third the hazard rate after 20 months for DFS and one sixth after 40 months for OS.

Conclusion

In a randomized prospective cancer therapy trial, for the first time, a strong predictive impact of YB-1 on survival has been demonstrated: enhanced benefit from HD (v DD) therapy occurs in HRBC with high YB-1. Future trials could therefore address optimal chemotherapeutic strategies,taking YB-1 into account.

Is Higher Efficacy Always at the Price of More Side Effects during Chemotherapy?

Breast cancer remains the most prevalent cancer diagnosed in women worldwide. The number of effective treatments for breast cancer is on the rise, however, the benefit from specific treatments to individual patients and the adverse events experienced vary considerably. Efficacy and safety of anticancer therapies may depend on tumor, treatment, and host characteristics. Advances in the adjuvant chemotherapy of operable breast cancer have come from the introduction of effective agents and the application of the principles of combination chemotherapy. Attempts to advance these principles by substantial escalation of drug dosage have proven unsuccessful with a potentially higher rate of side effects. Another concept to increase efficacy is dose density, the administration of drugs with shortened intertreatment interval, and sequential therapy. The dose-dense concept improved clinical outcome significantly and was not accompanied by an increase in toxicity.