Randomized trial of adjuvant chemotherapy for operable breast cancer comparing i.v. CMF to an epirubicin-containing regimen [see comment]

A careful reassessment of anthracycline use in curable breast cancer

It has been over three decades since anthracyclines took their place as the standard chemotherapy backbone for breast cancer in the curative setting. Though the efficacy of anthracycline chemotherapy is not debatable, potentially life-threatening and long-term risks accompany this class of agents, leading some to question their widespread use, especially when newer agents with improved therapeutic indices have become available. Critically assessing when to incorporate an anthracycline is made more relevant in an era where molecular classification is enabling not only the development of biologically targeted therapeutics but also is improving the ability to better select those who would benefit from cytotoxic agents. This comprehensive analysis will present the problem of overtreatment in early-stage breast cancer, review evidence supporting the use of anthracyclines in the pre-taxane era, analyze comparative trials evaluating taxanes with or without anthracyclines in biologically unselected and selected patient populations, and explore published work aimed at defining anthracycline-sensitive tumor types.

Randomized, controlled trial of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil versus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and fluorouracil with and without tamoxifen for high-risk, node-negative breast cancer: treatment results of Intergroup Protocol INT-0102

PURPOSE

We evaluated the efficacy of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) versus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and fluorouracil (CAF) in node-negative breast cancer patients with and without tamoxifen (TAM), overall and by hormone receptor (HR) status.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Node-negative patients identified by tumor size (> 2 cm), negative HR, or high S-phase fraction (n = 2,690) were randomly assigned to CMF, CAF, CMF + TAM (CMFT), or CAF + TAM (CAFT). Cox regression evaluated overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) for CAF versus CMF and TAM versus no TAM separately. Two-sided CIs and one-sided P values for planned comparisons were calculated.

RESULTS

Ten-year estimates indicated that CAF was not significantly better than CMF (P = .13) for the primary outcome of DFS (77% v 75%; HR = 1.09; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.27). CAF had slightly better OS than CMF (85% v 82%, HR = 1.19 for CMF v CAF; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.43); values were statistically significant in the planned one-sided test (P = .03). Toxicity was greater with CAF and did not increase with TAM. Overall, TAM had no benefit (DFS, P = .16; OS, P = .37), but the TAM effect differed by HR groups. For HR-positive patients, TAM was beneficial (DFS, HR = 1.32 for no TAM v TAM; 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.61; P = .003; OS, HR = 1.26; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.61; P = .03), but not for HR-negative patients (DFS, HR = 0.81 for no TAM v TAM; 95% CI, 0.64 to 1.03; OS, HR = 0.79; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.05).

CONCLUSION

CAF did not improve DFS compared with CMF; there was a slight effect on OS. Given greater toxicity, we cannot conclude CAF to be superior to CMF. TAM is effective in HR-positive disease, but not in HR-negative disease.

Epirubicin versus CMF as adjuvant therapy for stage I and II breast cancer: a prospective randomised study

We compared a relatively short regimen of monochemotherapy with epirubicin versus polychemotherapy with CMF (cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil) as adjuvant treatment for stage I and II breast cancer patients. 348 patients with oestrogen receptor negative (ER-) node negative and ER- or ER+ node-positive with <10 nodes were accrued. CMF was given intravenously (i.v.) on days 1 and 8, every 4 weeks, for six courses; epirubicin was given weekly for 4 months. Postmenopausal patients received tamoxifen for 3 years. The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS), relapse-free survival (RFS) and event-free survival (EFS). Outcome evaluation was performed both in eligible patients and in all randomised patients according to the intention-to-treat principle. 8 randomised patients were considered ineligible. At a median follow-up of 8 years, there was no difference in OS (Hazard Ratio (HR)=1.11, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.77-1.61, P=0.58), EFS (HR=1.14, 95% CI: 0.78-1.64, P=0.48), and RFS (HR=1.14, 95% CI: 0.8-1.64, P=0.48) between the two arms for all of the patients. At 8 years, the RFS percentages (+/-Standard Error (S.E.)) were 65.4% (+/-4%) in the CMF arm and 62.7% (+/-4%) in the epirubicin arm; for EFS these were 64.2% (+/-4%) for CMF and 60.8% (+/-4%) for epirubicin, respectively. A significant difference in RFS (P=0.015) was observed in patients with 4-9 positive nodes in favour of the CMF arm. Toxicity in the two arms was superimposable except for more frequent grade 3 alopecia in the epirubicin-treated patients (P=0.001). Overall, at a median follow-up of 8 years, there were no differences between the two arms in terms of OS, EFS and RFS.

Epirubicin. A review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties, and therapeutic use in cancer chemotherapy

Epirubicin is the 4' epimer of the anthracycline antibiotic doxorubicin, and has been used alone or in combination with other cytotoxic agents in the treatment of a variety of malignancies. Comparative and noncomparative clinical trials have demonstrated that regimens containing conventional doses of epirubicin achieved equivalent objective response rates and overall median survival as similar doxorubicin-containing regimens in the treatment of advanced and early breast cancer, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), small cell lung cancer (SCLC), non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, ovarian cancer, gastric cancer and nonresectable primary hepatocellular carcinoma. Recently, dose-intensive regimens of epirubicin have achieved high response rates in a number of malignancies including early and advanced breast cancer and lung cancer. The major acute dose-limiting toxicity of anthracyclines is myelosuppression. In vitro and clinical studies have shown that, at equimolar doses, epirubicin is less myelotoxic than doxorubicin. The lower haematological toxicity of epirubicin, as well as the recent introduction of supportive measures such as colony-stimulating factors, has allowed dose-intensification of epirubicin-containing regimens, which is particularly significant because of the definite dose-response relationship of anthracyclines. Cardiotoxicity, which is manifested clinically as irreversible congestive heart failure and/or cardiomyopathy, is the most important chronic cumulative dose-limiting toxicity of anthracyclines. Epirubicin has a lower propensity to produce cardiotoxic effects than doxorubicin, and its recommended maximum cumulative dose is almost double that of doxorubicin, thus allowing for more treatment cycles and/or higher doses of epirubicin. In summary, dose-intensive epirubicin-containing regimens, which are feasible due to its lower myelosuppression and cardiotoxicity, have produced high response rates in early breast cancer, a potentially curable malignancy, as well as advanced breast, and lung cancers. Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that improved response rates can improve quality of life in some clinical settings, but whether this leads to prolonged survival has not yet been determined. Recently implemented supportive measures such as colony-stimulating factors, prophylactic antimicrobials and peripheral blood stem cell support may help achieve other potential advantages of dose-intensive epirubicin-containing regimens such as reductions in morbidity and length of hospital admissions.