Advertisement

Clinical Drug Investigation

, Volume 38, Issue 7, pp 639–648 | Cite as

Efficacy and Safety of Neoadjuvant Treatment with Bevacizumab, Liposomal Doxorubicin, Cyclophosphamide and Paclitaxel Combination in Locally/Regionally Advanced, HER2-Negative, Grade III at Premenopausal Status Breast Cancer: A Phase II Study

  • Ekaterini C. Tampaki
  • Athanasios Tampakis
  • Constantinos E. AlifierisEmail author
  • Dimitrios Krikelis
  • Anastasia Pazaiti
  • Michalis Kontos
  • Dimitrios T. Trafalis
Original Research Article

Abstract

Background

In the era of personalized therapy, targeted treatment in specific patient populations is mandated.

Objective

We evaluated the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant treatment on locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) with a monoclonal agent against vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), bevacizumab plus chemotherapy combination of liposomal doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide and paclitaxel (PLAC-B).

Methods

Patients enrolled were at premenopausal status and characterized by human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, hormone-receptor positive (estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor-positive [ER/PR+]) or triple-negative (TNBC), LABC (T > 3 cm), with high-grade ductal carcinoma. Patients had to have a measurable disease and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) of 0, with adequate hematologic, renal, and hepatic function. Patients received intravenous liposomal doxorubicin 30 mg/m2, cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2, paclitaxel 120 mg/m2, and bevacizumab 8 mg/kg on day 1 of 15-day cycles for four cycles (four administrations as neoadjuvant treatment). The primary endpoint was complete clinical (cCR) and pathologic (pCR) response rates, while secondary endpoints included safety, breast-conserving surgery (BCS) conversion rate, and disease-free survival (DFS).

Results

Sixty-two women were enrolled; 20 were ER/PR+ and 42 had TNBC. All underwent surgery, six received mastectomy, and 56 (90.3%) received BCS, with an equal conversion rate from initial indication for mastectomy. cCR was 25.8%. pCR in the breast and axilla occurred in 24 patients (38.7%). pCR was 42.9% for TNBC and 30% for ER/PR+. Hematologic adverse events (AEs) included neutropenia (74.2% total; 22.6% grade 3 [G3]) and febrile neutropenia (6.5% G3); non-hematologic G3 AEs included nausea (6.5%), mucositis (9.7%), and infection (3.2%), all of which were managed without negative sequelae. Over a 3-year follow-up, all patients were alive and DFS was 87.1%.

Conclusion

PLAC-B as neoadjuvant treatment of this subpopulation with TNBC and ER/PR+ patients is effective and safe. Further studies are necessitated.

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

Ekaterini C. Tampaki, Athanasios Tampakis, Constantinos E. Alifieris, Dimitrios Krikelis, Anastasia Pazaiti, Michalis Kontos, and Dimitrios T. Trafalis declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Funding

No funding was received for this work.

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

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in this study.

References

  1. 1.
    American Cancer Society. Cancer facts & figures 2017. https://www.cancer.org/research/cancer-facts-statistics/all-cancer-facts-figures/cancer-facts-figures-2017.html. Accessed 17 Sept 2017.
  2. 2.
    Yao H, He G, Yan S, Chen C, et al. Triple-negative breast cancer: is there a treatment on the horizon? Oncotarget. 2017;8(1):1913–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wahba HA, El-Hadaad HA. Current approaches in treatment of triple-negative breast cancer. Cancer Biol Med. 2015;12:106–16.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Edge SB, Compton CC. The 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual and the future of TNM. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(6):1471–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cleator S, Heller W, Coombes RC. Triple-negative breast cancer: therapeutic options. Lancet Oncol. 2007;8:235–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schwartz GF, Hortobagyi GN. Proceedings of the consensus conference on neoadjuvant chemotherapy in carcinoma of the breast, April 26–28, 2003, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Cancer. 2004;100(12):2512–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jain RK. Tumor angiogenesis and accessibility: role of vascular endothelial growth factor. Semin Oncol. 2002;29(6 Suppl 16):3–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Linderholm BK, Hellborg H, Johansson U, et al. Significantly higher levels of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and shorter survival times for patients with primary operable triple-negative breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2009;20:1639–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bell R, Brown J, Parmar M, et al. Final efficacy and updated safety results of the randomized phase III BEATRICE trial evaluating adjuvant bevacizumab-containing therapy in triple-negative early breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2017;28(4):754–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Miller K, O’Neill AM, Dang CT, et al. Bevacizumab (Bv) in the adjuvant treatment of HER2-negative breast cancer: final results from Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group E5103 [abstract no. 500]. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:5s.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lenzer J. FDA committee votes to withdraw bevacizumab for breast cancer. BMJ. 2013;343:d4244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nahleh ZA, Barlow WE, Hayes DF, et al. SWOG S0800 (NCI CDR0000636131): addition of bevacizumab to neoadjuvant nab-paclitaxel with dose-dense doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide improves pathologic complete response (pCR) rates in inflammatory or locally advanced breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016;158(3):485–95.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Miles DW, Dieras V, Cortes J, Duenne AA, Yi J, O’Shaughnessy J. First-line bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: pooled and subgroup analyses of data from 2447 patients. Ann Oncol. 2013;24:2773–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jubb AM, Harris AL. Biomarkers to predict the clinical efficacy of bevacizumab in cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11:1172–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sikov WM, Berry DA, Perou CM, et al. Impact of the addition of carboplatin and/or bevacizumab to neoadjuvant once-per-week paclitaxel followed by dose-dense doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide on pathologic complete response rates in stage II to III triple-negative breast cancer: CALGB 40603 (Alliance). J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(1):13–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    von Minckwitz G, Eidtmann H, Rezai M, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and bevacizumab for HER2-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(4):299–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Earl HM, Hiller L, Dunn JA, et al. Efficacy of neoadjuvant bevacizumab added to docetaxel followed by fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide, for women with HER2-negative early breast cancer (ARTemis): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(6):656–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bear HD, Tang G, Rastogi P, et al. Neoadjuvant plus adjuvant bevacizumab in early breast cancer (NSABP B-40 [NRG Oncology]): secondary outcomes of a phase 3, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(9):1037–48.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Hicks DG, et al. Recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(31):3997–4013.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumors: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:228–47.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Oken MM, Creech RH, Tormey DC, et al. Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am J Clin Oncol. 1982;5(6):649–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Basch E, Reeve B, Mitchell SA, et al. Development of the National Cancer Institute’s patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE). J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106(9):dju244.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/dju244 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Francis PA, Regan MM, Fleming GF, et al. Adjuvant ovarian suppression in premenopausal breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(5):436–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Simon R. Optimal two-stage designs for phase II clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10(1):1–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zielinski C, Láng I, Inbar M, et al. Bevacizumab plus paclitaxel versus bevacizumab plus capecitabine as first-line treatment for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (TURANDOT): primary endpoint results of a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(9):1230–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bear HD, Tang G, Rastogi P, et al. The effect on surgical complications of bevacizumab added to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: NRG oncology/NSABP protocol B-40. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;24(7):1853–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Golshan M, Cirrincione CT, Sikov WM, et al. Impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in stage II-III triple negative breast cancer on eligibility for breast-conserving surgery and breast conservation rates: surgical results from CALGB 40603 (Alliance). Ann Surg. 2015;262(3):434–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tolaney SM, Boucher Y, Duda DG, et al. Role of vascular density and normalization in response to neoadjuvant bevacizumab and chemotherapy in breast cancer patients. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2015;112(46):14325–30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kansal KJ, Dominici LS, Tolaney SM, et al. Neoadjuvant bevacizumab: surgical complications of mastectomy with and without reconstruction. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;141(2):255–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zhang H, Huang Z, Zou X, Liu T. Bevacizumab and wound-healing complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Oncotarget. 2016;7(50):82473–81.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ekaterini C. Tampaki
    • 1
  • Athanasios Tampakis
    • 1
    • 2
  • Constantinos E. Alifieris
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    Email author
  • Dimitrios Krikelis
    • 3
  • Anastasia Pazaiti
    • 6
  • Michalis Kontos
    • 7
  • Dimitrios T. Trafalis
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Second Department Propaedeutic Surgery, “Laikon” General Hospital of AthensNational and Kapodistrian University of AthensAthensGreece
  2. 2.Department of Visceral SurgeryBasel University HospitalBaselSwitzerland
  3. 3.Department of Pharmacology, Medical SchoolNational and Kapodistrian University of AthensAthensGreece
  4. 4.Department of Medical Oncology“Henry Dunant” Hospital CenterAthensGreece
  5. 5.Department of SurgeryGeneral Hospital of Nea Ionia “Agia Olga-Konstantopouleion”AthensGreece
  6. 6.Breast Unit‘Bioclinic’ General Clinic of AthensAthensGreece
  7. 7.First Department of Surgery, “Laikon” General Hospital of AthensNational and Kapodistrian University of AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations