Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 165, Issue 3, pp 771–777 | Cite as

From clinical trials to clinical practice: outcome of NSABP-B27 neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimen for high-risk early-stage breast cancer

  • Hikmat Abdel-RazeqEmail author
  • Lina Marei
  • Salwa S. Saadeh
  • Hazem Abdulelah
  • Mahmoud Abu-Nasser
  • Mourad Salam
  • Walid Daana
  • Basel Al-Haj Ali
  • Ayat Taqash
Brief Report



Majority of Jordanian breast cancer patients present at a relatively young age and with locally advanced disease highlight the importance of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of NSABP-B27 regimen in high-risk patients in daily clinical practice.


Patients’ medical records and hospital database were searched for all consecutive patients treated at our institution for breast cancer using neoadjuvant NSABP-B27 chemotherapy regimen. Chemotherapy was given at standard doses and schedule as originally reported in the NSABP-B27.


346 female patients (median age 51 years) were treated using this regimen. Majority had high-risk features including larger tumor size (>4 cm in 68.5%), positive axillary lymph nodes (78.3%), and Grade III disease (47.4%). While most patients tolerated and completed planned chemotherapy, 41 (11.8%) patients failed to complete all four cycles of docetaxel. Following neoadjuvant chemotherapy, complete pathological response (pCR) was achieved in 84 (25.0%) evaluable patients; pCR was higher in hormone receptor-negative disease (40.0 vs. 22.1%, p = 0.002), in patient with tumor size ≤4 cm (28.3 vs. 23.5%, p = 0.024) and in patients with node-negative disease (41.2 vs. 20.7%, p = 0.002). Age (<50 vs. ≥50) had no effect, with pCR of 24.2 and 26.4%, respectively (p = 0.607). Breast-conserving surgery was performed in 85 (24.6%).


NSABP-B27 is an effective neoadjuvant regimen. Despite including higher risk patients, pCR is similar to the original NSABP-B27 and many other anthracycline–taxane-based regimens. Tumor size, LN status, hormone receptors status, but not age, were significant factors in achieving pCR.


Breast cancer Neoadjuvant Docetaxel Anthracycline 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

For this type of study formal consent is not required.


  1. 1.
    Jordan Cancer Registry (2013) Cancer incidence in Jordan. Ministry of Health, Amman-JordanGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abdel-Razeq H, Attiga F, Mansour A (2015) Cancer care in Jordan. Hematol Oncol Stem Cell Ther. 8(2):64–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mieog JS, van der Hage JA, van de Velde CJ (2007) Preoperative chemotherapy for women with operable breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005002.pub2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen AM, Meric-Bernstam F, Hunt KK et al (2004) Breast conservation after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: the MD Anderson cancer center experience. J Clin Oncol 22:2303–2312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Killelea BK, Yang VQ, Mougalian S et al (2015) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer increases the rate of breast conservation: results from the National Cancer Database. J Am Coll Surg 220:1063–1069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beriwal S, Schwartz GF, Komarnicky L, Garcia-Young JA (2002) Breast-conserving therapy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: long-term results. Breast J 12:159–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fisher B, Brown A, Mamounas E et al (1997) Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on local-regional disease in women with operable breast cancer: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-18. J Clin Oncol 15:2483–2493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    van der Hage JA, van de Velde CJ, Julien JP et al (2001) Preoperative chemotherapy in primary operable breast cancer: results from the European Organization for research and Treatment of Cancer Trial 10902. J Clin Oncol 19:4224–4237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kaufmann M, von Minckwitz G, Mamounas EP et al (2012) Recommendations from an international consensus conference on the current status and future of neoadjuvant systemic therapy in primary breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 19:1508–1516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gampenrieder SP, Rinnerthaler G, Greil R (2013) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and targeted therapy in breast cancer: past, present, and future. J Oncol 2013:732047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bear HD, Anderson S, Brown A et al (2003) The effect on tumor response of adding sequential preoperative docetaxel to preoperative doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide: preliminary results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol B-27. J Clin Oncol 21:4165–4174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bear HD, Anderson S, Smith RE et al (2006) Sequential preoperative or postoperative docetaxel added to preoperative doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide for operable breast cancer: National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol B-27. J Clin Oncol 24:2019–2027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Smith IC, Heys SD, Hutcheon AW et al (2002) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: significantly enhanced response with docetaxel. J Clin Oncol 20:1456–1466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cuppone F, Bria E, Carlini P et al (2008) Taxanes as primary chemotherapy for early breast cancer: meta-analysis of randomized trials. Cancer 113:238–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Evans TR, Yellowlees A, Foster E et al (2005) Phase III randomized trial of doxorubicin and docetaxel versus doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide as primary medical therapy in women with breast cancer: an anglo-celtic cooperative oncology group study. J Clin Oncol 23:2988–2995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Diéras V, Fumoleau P, Romieu G et al (2004) Randomized parallel study of doxorubicin plus paclitaxel and doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide as neoadjuvant treatment of patients with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 22:4958–4965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Goss PE, Ingle JN, Martino S et al (2005) Randomized trial of letrozole following tamoxifen as extended adjuvant therapy in receptor-positive breast cancer: updated findings from NCIC CTG MA.17. J Natl Cancer Inst 97:1262–1271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cortazar P, Zhang L, Untch M et al (2014) Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis. Lancet 384:164–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    von Minckwitz G, Untch M, Blohmer JU et al (2012) Definition and impact of pathologic complete response on prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in various intrinsic breast cancer subtypes. J Clin Oncol 30:1796–1804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Esserman LJ, Berry DA, DeMichele A et al (2012) Pathologic complete response predicts recurrence-free survival more effectively by cancer subset: results from the I-SPY 1 TRIAL. J Clin Oncol 30:3242–3249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rastogi P, Anderson SJ, Bear HD et al (2008) Preoperative chemotherapy: updates of National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocols B-18 and B-27. J Clin Oncol 26:778–785CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Internal Medicine, Section of Hematology and Medical OncologyKing Hussein Cancer CenterAmmanJordan
  2. 2.Center of Research Shared ResourcesKing Hussein Cancer CenterAmmanJordan

Personalised recommendations