Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 145, Issue 2, pp 401–409 | Cite as

Randomized phase II study of weekly paclitaxel with and without carboplatin followed by cyclophosphamide/epirubicin/5-fluorouracil as neoadjuvant chemotherapy for stage II/IIIA breast cancer without HER2 overexpression

  • Masashi Ando
  • Hideko Yamauchi
  • Kenjiro Aogi
  • Satoru Shimizu
  • Hiroji Iwata
  • Norikazu Masuda
  • Naohito Yamamoto
  • Kenichi Inoue
  • Shinji Ohono
  • Katsumasa Kuroi
  • Tetsutaro Hamano
  • Tamie Sukigara
  • Yasuhiro Fujiwara
Clinical trial


Addition of carboplatin to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in HER2-negative breast cancer may improve pathological complete response (pCR) rates. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of carboplatin and weekly paclitaxel (wPTX) followed by cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and 5-fluorouracil (CEF) as neoadjuvant chemotherapy for HER2-negative breast cancer. Patients with stage II/IIIA HER2-negative breast cancer were randomly assigned to preoperatively receive CP-CEF (four 3-week cycles of carboplatin [area under the curve 5 mg/mL/min, day 1] and wPTX [80 mg/m2, day 1, 8, 15] followed by four 3-week cycles of CEF [500/100/500 mg/m2] or P-CEF (four cycles of wPTX followed by four cycles of CEF). The primary objective was pCR rate. Of 181 eligible patients, 89 were randomly assigned to the CP-CEF and 92 to the P-CEF. Two patients in each arm refused to receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Overall 88 patients in the CP-CEF and 91 patients in the P-CEF were assessable for efficacy and safety. The pCR rate in the CP-CEF was significantly higher than that in the P-CEF (31.8 vs. 17.6 %, one-sided P = 0.01). Among patients with triple-negative breast cancer, the pCR rate in the CP-CEF was significantly higher than that in the P-CEF [61.2 (23/37) vs. 26.3 % (10/38), P = 0.003]. Grade 3–4 neutropenia was observed in the CP-CEF more frequently than in the P-CEF (65.9 vs. 38.5 %). Adding carboplatin to neoadjuvant wPTX followed by CEF for HER2-negative breast cancer improved the pCR rate and exacerbated hematotoxicity.


Breast cancer Carboplatin HER2 negative Neoadjuvant chemotherapy 



We thank the women who participated in this trial; Hitoshi Tsuda, Futoshi Akiyama, and Shinobu Masuda for central review of pathological diagnoses; Hiroi Kasai for preparing for this study; and Midori Tanaka for writing the study report. This study had been performed as a registration-directed trial in accordance with the Good Clinical Practice guideline [Enforcement Regulation No. 24 of the MHLW (revised GCP) dated on February 29, 2008], which is published by the revised Pharmaceutical Affairs Act in Japan (No. 84 dated on June 21, 2006). This study was supported by the Health and Labour Sciences Research Grants (Clinical Cancer Research), Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (Grant Number: MHLW, 2009 Clinical Cancer Research General-020) and the Cancer Research and Development grants, and National Cancer Center (Grant Number: 2011-A-42).

Conflicts of interest

MA has declared conflicts related to lecture fees form Kyowa Hakko Kirin Co., Ltd. SO has declared conflicts related to lecture fees from Astra Zeneca K. K., Novartis Pharma K. K., and Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. YF has declared conflicts related to conducting research sponsored by Kyowa Hakko Kirin Co., Ltd., Glaxo Smith Kline K. K., Sanofi-Aventis K. K., Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd., Taiho Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Takeda Bio Development Center Limited, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Nippon Kayaku Co., Ltd., Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim Co., Ltd., Novartis Pharma K. K., Pfizer Japan Inc., Janssen Pharmaceutical K. K., and Kissei Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and remunerations from Astra Zeneca K. K., Eisai Co., Ltd., Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Kyowa Hakko Kirin Co., Ltd., Glaxo Smith Kline K. K., Sanofi-Aventis K. K., Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd., Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Eli Lilly Japan K. K., Nippon Kayaku Co., Ltd., Novartis Pharma K. K., and Bristol-Myers Squibb K. K. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest.


  1. 1.
    Mauri D, Pavlidis N, Ioannidis HPA (2005) Neoadjuvant versus adjuvant systemic treatment in breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 97:188–194PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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 19:1508–1516PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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 21:4165–4174PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    von Minckwitz G, Kummel S, Vogel P et al (2008) Intensified neoadjuvant chemotherapy in early-responding breast cancer: phase III randomized Gepar Trio Study. J Natl Cancer Inst 100:552–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gianni L, Eiermann W, Semiglazov V et al (2010) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with trastuzumab followed by adjuvant trastuzumab versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone, in patients with HER2-positive locally advanced breast cancer (the NOAH trial): a randomized controlled superiority trial with a parallel HER-negative cohort. Lancet 375:377–384PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    von Minckwitz G, Rezai M, Loibl S et al (2010) Capecitabine in addition to anthracycline- and taxane-based neoadjuvant treatment in patients with primary breast cancer: phase III Gepar Quattro study. J Clin Oncol 28:2015–2023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Earl HM, Vallier AL, Hiller L et al (2014) Effects of the addition of gemcitabine, and paclitaxel-first sequencing, in neoadjuvant sequential epirubicin, cyclophosphamide, and paclitaxel for woman with high-risk early breast cancer (Neo-tAnGo): an open-label, 2 × 2 factorial randomized phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 15:201–212PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kolaric K, Vukas D (1991) Carboplatin activity in untreated metastatic breast cancer patients—results of a phase II study. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 27:409–412PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Martin M, Diaz-Rubio E, Casado A et al (1992) Carboplatin: an active drug in metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 10:433–437PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    O’Brien ME, Talbot DC, Smith IE (1993) Carboplatin in the treatment of advanced breast cancer: a phase II study using a pharmacokinetically guided dose schedule. J Clin Oncol 11:2112–2117PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Slamon D, Eiermann W, Robert N et al (2011) Adjuvant trastuzumab in HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 365:1273–1283PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Robert N, Leyland-Jones B, Asmar L et al (2006) Randomized phase III study of trastuzumab, paclitaxel, and carboplatin compared with trastuzumab and paclitaxel in women with HER-2 overexpressing metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 24:2786–2792PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fountzilas G, Dafni U, Dimopoulos MA et al (2009) A randomized phase III study comparing three anthracycline-free taxane-based regimens, as first-line chemotherapy, in metastatic breast cancer: a Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 115:87–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kelly CM, Green MC, Broglio K et al (2012) Phase III trial evaluating weekly paclitaxel versus docetaxel in combination with capecitabine in operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 30:930–935PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lehmann BD, Bauer JA, Chen X et al (2011) Identification of human triple-negative breast cancer subtypes and preclinical models for selection of targeted therapies. J Clin Invest 121:2750–2767PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fan Y, Xu BH, Yuan P et al (2013) Docetaxel-cisplatin might be superior to docetaxel–capecitabine in the first-line treatment of metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. Ann Oncol 24:1219–1225PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Elston CW, Ellis IO (1991) Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology 19:403–410PubMedCrossRefGoogle 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. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62422-8 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Alba E, Chacon JI, Llush A et al (2012) A randomized phase II trial of platinum salts in basal-like breast cancer patients in the neoadjuvant seeting. Results from the GEICAM/2006-03, multicenter study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 136:487–493PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sikow WM, Berry DA, Perou CM et al (2013) Impact of the addition of carboplatin and/or bevacizumab to neoadjuvant weekly paclitaxel followed by dose-dense AC on pathologic complete response rates in triple-negative breast cancer: CALGB/Alliance 40603. In: 36th annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium abstract S5-01Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    von Minckwitz G, Schneeweiss A, Salat C et al (2013) A randomized phase II trial investigating the addition of carboplatin to neoadjuvant therapy for triple-negative and HER2-positive early breast cancer (GeparSixto). J Clin Oncol 31:860–867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Katsumata N, Yasuda M, Takahashi F et al (2009) Dose-dense paclitaxel once a week in combination with carboplatin every 3 weeks for advanced ovarian cancer: a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 374:1331–1338PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Thiery-Vuillemin A, Llombart-Cussac A, Chaiqneau L et al (2011) Sequential taxane and anthracycline-containing neoadjuvant regimens: the sequential order impact. Breast 20:46–49PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Eiermann W, Bergh J, Cardoso F et al (2012) Triple negative breast cancer: proposals for a pragmatic definition and implications for patient management and trial design. Breast 21:20–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Masashi Ando
    • 1
  • Hideko Yamauchi
    • 2
  • Kenjiro Aogi
    • 3
  • Satoru Shimizu
    • 4
  • Hiroji Iwata
    • 5
  • Norikazu Masuda
    • 6
  • Naohito Yamamoto
    • 7
  • Kenichi Inoue
    • 8
  • Shinji Ohono
    • 9
  • Katsumasa Kuroi
    • 10
  • Tetsutaro Hamano
    • 11
  • Tamie Sukigara
    • 12
  • Yasuhiro Fujiwara
    • 13
  1. 1.Department of Clinical OncologyAichi Cancer Center HospitalNagoyaJapan
  2. 2.Department of Breast Surgical OncologySt. Luke’s International HospitalTokyoJapan
  3. 3.Department of Breast OncologyNational Hospital Organization Shikoku Cancer CenterMatsuyamaJapan
  4. 4.Department of Breast Oncology and Endocrine SurgeryKanagawa Cancer CenterYokohamaJapan
  5. 5.Department of Breast OncologyAichi Cancer Center HospitalNagoyaJapan
  6. 6.Department of Surgery and Breast OncologyNational Hospital Organization Osaka National HospitalOsakaJapan
  7. 7.Division of Breast SurgeryChiba Cancer CenterChibaJapan
  8. 8.Division of Breast OncologySaitama Cancer CenterSaitamaJapan
  9. 9.Department of Clinical OncologyNational Kyushu Cancer CenterFukuokaJapan
  10. 10.Department of Breast SurgeryTokyo Metropolitan Cancer and Infectious Diseases Center Komagome HospitalTokyoJapan
  11. 11.Clinical Trial Coordinating Center, Kitasato Academic Research OrganizationKitasato UniversityTokyoJapan
  12. 12.Exploratory Oncology Research & Clinical Trial CenterChibaJapan
  13. 13.Department of Breast and Medical OncologyNational Cancer Center HospitalTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations