High-Dose Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer

  • Yago Nieto
  • Elizabeth J. Shpall
Part of the Cancer Treatment and Research book series (CTAR, volume 103)

Abstract

Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), using hematopoietic progenitor cells derived from either the bone marrow or peripheral blood, allows for the administration of chemotherapy (CT) with a several fold increase in the doses. The goal is to achieve a higher tumor-cell kill than standard-dose CT, in the hope that it will translate into an improvement in outcome. In the high-dose chemotherapy (HDCT) setting, extramedullary organ toxicities become dose limiting.1 The improvement in supportive care has decreased the morbidity and mortality associated with HDCT to a current toxic death rate of less than 5%.2

Keywords

Breast Cancer Clin Oncol Metastatic Breast Cancer Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation Inflammatory Breast Cancer 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Peters WP, Henner WD, Bast RC, Schnipper L, Frei III E. Novel toxicities associated with high dose combination alkylating agents in autologous bone marrow support. In Dicke KA, Spitzer G, Zander AR (eds): Autologous Bone Marrow Transplantation: Proceedings of the First International Symposium. University of Texas Cancer center, MD Anderson Hospital, Houston, pp 231–235, 1986.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Antman KH, Rowlings PA, Vaughan WP, et al. High-dose chemotherapy with autologous hematopoietic stem-cell support for breast cancer in North America. J Clin Oncol 15: 1870–1879, 1997.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hryniuk W, Busch H. The importance of dose intensity in chemotherapy of metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2: 1281–1288, 1984.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hryniuk W, Frei III E, Wright FA. A single scale for comparing dose-intensity of all chemotherapy regimens in breast cancer: Summation dose-intensity. J Clin Oncol 16: 3137–3147, 1998.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hryniuk W, Levine MN. Analysis of dose intensity for adjuvant chemotherapy trials in stage II breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 4: 1162–1170, 1986.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bonadonna G, Valagussa P. Dose-response effect of adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. N Eng J Med 304: 10–15, 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tannock IF, Boyd NF, DeBoer G, et al. A randomized trial of two doses of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and fluorouracil for patients with metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 6: 1377–1387, 1988.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hortobagyi GN, Bodey GP, Buzdar AU, et al. Evaluation of high-dose versus standard FAC chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer in protected environment units: A prospective randomized study. J Clin Oncol 5: 354364, 1987.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Winer E. Berry D, Duggan D, et al. Failure of higher dose paclitaxel to improve outcome in aptients with metastatic breast cancer - Results from CALGB 9342. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998; 17: 101a.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Habeshaw T, Paul R, Jones R, et al. Epirubicin at two dose levels with prednisolone as treatment for advanced breast cancer: The results of a randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 9: 295–304, 1991.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bastholt L, Dalmark M, Gjedde SB, et al. Dose-response relationship of epirubicin in the treatment of postmenopausal patients with metastatic breast cancer: A randomized study of epirubicin at four different dose levels performed by the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group. J Clin Oncol 1996; 14: 1146–1155.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brufman G, Corajort E, Ghilezan N, et al. Doubling epirubicin dose intensity (100 mg/m2 versus 50 mg/m2) in the FEC regimen significantly increases response rate. An international randomized phase III study in metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol 1997; 8: 155–162.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Focan C, Andrien JM, Closon Mth, et al. Dose-response relationship of epirubicin based first-line chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer: A prospective randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 1993; 11: 1253–1263.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fountzilas G, Athanassiades A, Giannakkais T, et al. A randomized study of epirubicin monotherapy every four or every two weeks in advanced breast cancer. A Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group study. Ann Oncol 1997; 8: 1213–1220.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wood WC, Budman DR, Korzun AH, et al. Dose and dose intensity of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II, node-positive breast carcinoma. N Eng J Med 330: 1253–1259, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Budman DR, Berry DA, Cirrincione CT, et al. Dose and dose intensity as determinants of outcome in the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 91: 286–287, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bonneterre J, Roché H, Bremond A, et al. Results of a randomized trial of adjuvant chemotherapy with FEC 50 vs. FEC 100 in high risk node-positive breast cancer patients. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 17: 124a, 1998.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fisher B, Anderson S, Wickerham S, et al. Increased intensification and total dose of cyclophosphamide in a doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide regimen for the treatment of primary breast cancer: Findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-22. J Clin Oncol 15: 1858–1869, 1997.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wolmark N, Fisher B, Anderson S. The effect of increasing dose intensity and cumulative dose of adjuvant cyclophosphamide in node positive breast cancer: Results of NSABP B-25. Breast Cancer Res Treat 46 (1): 26, 1997.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Henderson IC, Berry D, Demetri G, et al. Improved disease-free and overall survival from the addition of sequential paclitaxel but not from the escalation of doxorubicin dose level in the adjuvant chemotherapy of patients with node-positive primary breast cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 17:101 a, 1998.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Greenberg PA, Hortobagyi GN, Smith TL, et al. Long-term follow-up of patients with complete remission following combination chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 14: 2197–2205, 1996.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Frei III E, Canellos GP. Dose: A critical factor in cancer chemotherapy. Amer J Med 69: 585–594, 1980.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Frei III E, Antman K, Teicher B, Eder P,et al. Bone Marrow Autotransplantation for solid tumors–Prospects. J Clin Oncol 4: 515–526, 1989.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Peters WP, Eder JP, Henner WD, et al. High-dose combination chemotherapy with autologous bone marrow support: A phase I trial. J Clin Oncol 4: 646–654, 1986.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Eder JP, Antman K, Peters WP, et al. High dose combination alkylating agent chemotherapy with autologous bone marrow support for metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 4: 646–654, 1986.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Eder JP, Elias A, Shea TC, et al. A phase I-II study of cyclophosphamide, thiotepa, and carboplatin with autologous bone marrow transplantation in solid tumor patients. J Clin Oncol 8: 1239–1245, 1990.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Williams SF, Bitran JD, Kaminer L, et al. A phase I-II study of bialkylator chemotherapy, high-dose thiotepa, and cyclophosphamide with autologous bone marrow reinfusion in patients with advanced cancer. J Clin Oncol 5: 260–265, 1990.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Peters WP, Shpall EJ, Jones RB, et al. High-dose combination chemotherapy with bone marrow support as initial treatment for metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 6: 1368–1376, 1988.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jones RB, Shpall EJ, Ross M, et al. AFM induction chemotherapy followed by intensive alkylating agent consolidation with autologous bone marrow support (ABMS) for advanced breast cancer: current results. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 7: 121, 1990.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Antman K, Ayash L, Elias A, et al. A phase II study of high-dose cyclophosphamide, thiotepa, and carboplatin with autologous bone marrow support in women with measurable advanced breast cancer responding to standard-dose therapy. J Clin Oncol 10: 102–110, 1992.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Williams SF, Gilewski T, Mick R, et al. High-dose consolidation therapy with autologous stem cell rescue in stage IV breast cancer: Follow-up report. J Clin Oncol 10: 1743–1747, 1992.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jones RB, Shpall EJ, Shogan J, et al. The Duke AFM program. Intensive induction chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. Cancer 66: 431–436, 1990.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Decker DA, Ahman DL, Bisel HF, et al. Complete responders to chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer. Characterization and analysis. JAMA 242: 2075–2079, 1979.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Powles TJ, Smith IE, Ford HT, et al. Failure of chemotherapy to prolong survival in a group of patients with metastatic breast cancer. Lancet 1: 580582, 1980.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Smith GA, Henderson IC. High-dose chemotherapy (HDC) with autologous bone marrow transplantation (ABMT) for the treatment of breast cancer: The jury is still out. In Hellman S, and Rosenberg SA (eds), pp 201–214, 1995.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rahman ZU, Frye DK, Buzdar AU, et al. Impact of selection process on response rate and long-term survival of potential high-dose chemotherapy candidates treated with standard-dose doxorubicin-containing chemotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 15: 3171–3177, 1997.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Dunphy FR, Spitzer G, Rossiter JE, et al. Factors predicting long-term survival for metastatic breast cancer patients treated with high-dose chemotherapy and bone marrow support. Cancer 73: 2157–2167, 1994.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ayash LJ, Wheeler C, Fairclough D, et al. Prognostic factors for prolonged progression-free survival with high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem-cell support for advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 13: 2043–2049, 1995.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Doroshow JH, Somlo G, Ahn C, et al. Prognostic factors predicting progression-free and overall survival in patients with responsive metastatic breast cancer treated with high-dose chemotherapy and bone marrow stem cell reinfusion. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 14: 319a, 1995.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Nieto Y, Cagnoni PJ, Shpall EJ, et al. Prospective phase II study of high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplant for patients with stage IV breast cancer with minimal metastases. Clin Cancer Res 5: 1731–1737, 1999.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Laport GF, Grad G, Grinblatt DL, et al. High-dose chemotherapy consolidation with autologous stem cell rescue in metastatic breast cancer: A 10-year experience. Bone Marrow Transplant 21: 127–132, 1998.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sledge GW, Loehrer PJ, Roht BJ, Einhorn LH. Cisplatin as first-line therapy for metastatic breats cancer. J Clin Oncol 6: 1811–1814, 1988.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Martin M, Diaz-Rubio E, Casado A, et al. Carboplatin: An active drug in metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 10: 433–437, 1992.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Tew K, Colvin OM, Chabner BA. Alkylating agents. In: BA Chabner and DL Longo (eds), Cancer Chemotherapy and Biotherapy, 2nd edition, pp 297–332. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven, 1996.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Chen T-L, Passos-Coelho JL, Noe DA, et al. Nonlinear pharmacokinetics of cyclophosphamide in patients with metastatic breast cancer receiving high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous bone marrow transplantation. Cancer Res 55: 810–816, 1996.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Nieto Y, Xu X, Cagnoni PJ, et al. Nonpredictable pharmacokinetic behavior of high-dose cyclophosphamide in combination with cisplatin and 1,3-bis(2chloroethyl)-1-nitrosourea. Clin Cancer Res 5: 747–751, 1999.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Busse D, Busch FW, Bohnenstengel F, Eichelbaum M, Fischer P, Opalinska J, Schumacher K, Schweizer E, Kroemer HK. Dose escalation of cyclophosphamide in patients with breast cancer: Consequences for pharmacokinetics and metabolism. J Clin Oncol 15: 1885–1896, 1997.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Doroshow JH. Anthracyclines and anthracenediones. In: Chabner BA and Longo DL (eds). Cancer Chemotherapy and Biotherapy. Lippincott-Raven, 2nd ed., 1996.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Eisenhauer EA, Ten Bokkel Huinink WW, Swenerton KD, et al. European-Canadian randomized trial of paclitaxel in relapsed ovarian cancer: High-dose versus low-dose and long versus short infusion. J Clin Oncol 12: 2654 2666, 1994.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kohn EC, Sarosy G, Bicher A, et al. Dose intense taxol: High response rate in patients with platinum resistant recurrent ovarian cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 86: 18–24, 1994.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Raymond E, Hanauske A, Faivre S, Izbicka E, Clark G, Rowinsky EK, Von Hoff DD. Effects of prolonged versus short-term exposure paclitaxel on human tumor colony-forming units. Anticancer Drugs 8: 379–385, 1997.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Hanauske AR, Degen D, Hilsenbeck SG, et al. Effects of Taxotere and Taxol in vitro colony formation of freshly explanted human tumour cells. Anticancer Drugs 3: 121–124, 1992.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Garcia P, Braguer D, Carkes G, et al. Comparative effects of taxol and taxotere on two different human carcinoma cell lines. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 34: 335–343, 1994.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Donehower RC, Rowinsky EK, Grochow LB,et al. Phase I trial of taxol in patients with advanced cancer. Cancer Treatment Rep 71: 1171–1177, 1987.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Aapro MS, Zulian G, Alberto P, et al. Phase I and pharmacokinetic study of RP 569876 in a new ethanol-free formulation of Taxotere. Ann Oncol 3 (Suppl 5): 208, 1992.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Extra JM, Rousseau F, Bruno R, et al. Phase I and pharmacokinetic study of Taxotere (RP 569876; NSC 628503) given as a short intravenous infusion. Cancer Res 53: 1037–1042, 1993.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Stemmer SM, Cagnoni PJ, Shpall EJ, et al. High-dose paclitaxel, cyclophosphamide, and cisplatin with autologous hematopoietic progenitor-cell support: A phase I trial. J Clin Oncol 14: 1463–1472, 1996.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Mamounas E, Brown A, Smith R, et al. Effect of taxol duration of infusion in advanced breast cancer (ABC): Results from NSABP-26 trial comparing 2-to 24-hr infusion of high-dose taxol. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 17: 101a, 1998.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Omura GA, Brady MF, Delmore JE, et al. A randomized trial of paclitaxel at 2 dose levels and filgastrim (G-CSF) at 2 doses in platinum pretreated epithelial ovarian cancer: a Gynecologic Oncology Group, SWOG, NCTTG and ECOG study. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 15: 280a, 1996.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Bonomi P, Kim K, Chang A, Johnson D. Phase III trial comparing etoposidecisplatin versus taxol with cisplatin-G-CSF versus taxol-cisplatin in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. An Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) trial. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 15: 382a, 1996.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Fields KK, Elfenbein GJ, Perkins JB, et al. High versus standard dose chemotherapy for the treatment of breast cancer. Annals New York Academy of Sciences 770: 288–304, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Mayordomo JI, Yubero A, Cajal R, et al. Phase I trial of high-dose paclitaxel in combination with cyclophosphamide, thiotepa and carboplatin with autologous peripheral blood stem cell rescue. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 16: 102a, 1997.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Chan S, Friedrichs K, Noel D, et al. A phase III study of taxotere7 vs. doxorubicin in patients with metastatic breast cancer who have failed an alkylating containing regimen. Breast Cancer Res Treat 46 (1): 23, 1997.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Valero V. Docetaxel as single-agent therapy in metastatic breast cancer: Clinical efficacy. Semin Oncol 24 (4, suppl 13): S13–11-S13–18, 1997.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Valero V, Holmes FA, Walters RS, et al. Phase II study of docetaxel: A new, highly effective antineoplastic agent in the management of patients with anthracycline-resistant metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 13: 2886–2894, 1995PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Ravdin PM, Burris HA III, Cook G, et al. Phase II trial of docetaxel in advanced anthracycline-resistant or anthracenedione-resistant breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 13: 2879–2885, 1995.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Dunphy FR, Spitzer G, Buzdar AU, et al: Treatment of estrogen receptor-negative or hormonally refractory breast cancer with double high-dose chemotherapy intensification and bone marrow support. J Clin Oncol 8: 1207–1216, 1990.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Crown J, Kritz A, Vandat K, et al. Rapid administration of multiple cycles of high-dose myelosuppressive chemotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 11: 1144–1149, 1993.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Shapiro CL, Ayash L, Webb IJ, et al. Repetitive cycles of cyclophosphamide, thiotepa, and carboplatin intensification with peripheral-blood progenitor cells and filgrastim in advanced breast cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 15: 674683, 1997.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Ayash LJ, Elias A, Wheeler C, et al. Double dose-intensive chemotherapy with autologous marrow and peripheral-blood progenitor-cell support for metastatic breast cancer: A feasibility study. J Clin Oncol 12: 37–44, 1994.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Rodenhuis S, Westermann A, Holtkamp MJ, et al. Feasibility of multiple courses of high-dose cyclophosphamide, thiotepa, and carboplatin for breast cancer or germ cell cancer. J Clin Oncol 14: 1473–1483, 1996.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Broun ER, Sridhara R, Sledge GW, et al. Tandem autotransplantion for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 13: 2050–2055, 1995.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Ayash LJ, Elias A, Schwartz G, et al. Double dose-intensive chemotherapy with autologous stem-cell support for metastatic breast cancer: No improvement in progression-free survival by the sequence of high-dose melphalan followed by cyclophosphamide, thiotepa, and carboplatin. J Clin Oncol 14: 2984–2992, 1996.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Bitran JD, Samuels B, Klein L, et al. Tandem high-dose chemotherapy supported by hematopoietic progenitor cells yields prolonged survival in stage IV breast cancer. Bone Marrow Transplant 17: 157–162, 1996.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Teicher BA, Ara G, Keyes SR, et al. Acute in vivo resistance in high-dose therapy. Clin Cancer Res 4: 483–491, 1998.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Bezwoda WR, Seymour L, Dansey RD. High-dose chemotherapy with hematopoietic rescue as primary treatment for metastatic breast cancer: A randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 13: 2483–2489, 1995.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Bezwoda WR. Primary high dose chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer: Update and analysis of prognostic factors. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 17: 115a, 1998.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Bezwoda WR, Seymour L, Ariad S. First line chemotherapy of advanced breast cancer with mitoxantrone, cyclophosphamide and vincristine. Oncology 46: 208–211, 1989.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Sparano JA, Hu P, Rao RM, et al. Phase II trial of doxorubicin plus paclitaxel plus G-CSF in metastatic breast cancer (MBC): An Eastern Oncology Cooperative Group study (E4195. Breast Cancer Res Treat 46: 23a, 1997.Google Scholar
  80. Irwin LE, Chlebowski RT. Weiner JM, et al. Randomized comparinson of two combination chemotherapy regimens containing doxorubicin in patients with metastatic breast cancer: a Western Cancer Study Group Trial. Cancer Treat Rep 64: 981–984, 1980.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Tranum BL, McDonald B, Thigpen T, et al. Adriamycin combinations in advanced breast cancer. A Southwest Oncology Group study. Cancer 49: 835–839, 1982.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Kennealey GT, Boston B, Mitchell MS, et al. Combination chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer: two regimens containing adriamycin. Cancer 42: 2733, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Sparano JA, Speyer J, Gradishar WJ, et al. Phase I trial of escalating doses of paclitaxel plus doxorubicin and dexrazoxane in patients with advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 17: 880–886, 1999.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Peters WP, Jones RB, Vredenburgh J, et al. A large, prospective, randomized trial of high-dose combination alkylating agents (CPB) with autologous cellular support (ABMS) as consolidation for patients with metastatic breast cancer achieving complete remission after intensive doxorubicin-based induction therapy (AFM). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 15: 121a, 1996.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Stadtmauer EA, O’Neill A, Godstein LJ, et al. Phase III randomized trial of high-dose chemotherapy (HDC) and stem cell support _(SCT) shows no difference in overall survival or severe toxicity compared to maintenance chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil (CMF) for women with metastatic breast cancer who are responding to conventional induction chemotherapy: The “Philadelphia” Intergroup study (PBT-1). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 18: 1a, 1999.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Lotz J-P, Curé H, Janvier M, et al. High-dose chemotherapy (HD-CT) with hematopoietic stem cells transplantation (HSCT) for metastatic breast cancer (MBC): Results of the French Protocol PEGASE 04. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 18: 43a, 1999.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Bonadonna G, Valagussa P. Adjuvant systemic therapy for resectable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 3: 259–275, 1985.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Bonadonna G, Zambetti M, Valagussa P. Sequential or alternating doxorubicin and CMF regimens in breast cancer with more than three positive nodes. Ten-year results. JAMA 273: 542–547, 1995.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Hryniuk W, Levine MN. Analysis of dose intensity for adjuvant chemotherapy trials in stage II breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 4: 1162–1170, 1986.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Peters WP, Ross M, Vredenburgh JJ, et al. High-dose chemotherapy and autologous bone marrow suppport as consolidation after standard-dose adjuvant therapy for high-risk primary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 11: 1132–1143, 1993.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Peters WP. Berry D, Vredenburgh JJ, et al. Five year follow-up of high-dose combination alkylating agents with ABMT as consolidation after standard-dose CAF for primary breast cancer involving 310 axillary lymph nodes (Duke/CALGB 8782). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 14: 317a, 1995.Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Gianni AM, Siena S, Bregni M, et al. Efficacy, toxicity and applicability of high-dose chemotherapy as adjuvant treatment in operable breast cancer with 10 or more involved axillary nodes: Five-year results. J Clin Oncol 15: 2312–2321, 1997.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Buzzoni R, Bonadonna G, Valagussa P, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy with doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and fluorouracil in the treatment of resectable breast cancer with more than three positive nodes. J Clin Oncol 9: 2134–2140, 1991.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Bearman SI, Overmoyer BA, Bolwell BJ, et al. High-dose chemotherapy with autologous peripheral blood progenitor cell support for primary breast cancer in patients with 4–9 involved axillary lymph nodes. Bone Marrow Transplantation 20: 931–937, 1997.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Hussein A, Plummer M, Vredenburgh J, et al. High-dose chemotherapy (HDC) with cyclophosphamide, cisplatin, and BCNU (CPB) and autologous bone marrow and peripheral blood progenitor cells for stage II/III breast cancer involving 4–9 axillary lymph nodes. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 15: 350a, 1996.Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    De Graaf H, Willemse PHB, De Vries EGE, et al. Intensive chemotherapy with autologous bone marrow transfusion as primary treatment in women with breast cancer and more than five involved axillary lymph nodes. Eur J Cancer 30A, 150–153, 1994.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Hudis C, Seidman A, Baselga J, et al. Sequential dose-dense doxorubicin, paclitaxel, and cyclophosphamide for resectable high-risk breast cancer: Feasibility and efficacy. J Clin Oncol 17: 93–100, 1999.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Jaiyesimi IA, Buzdar AU, Hortobagyi G. Inflammatory breast cancer: A review. J Clin Oncol 10: 1014–1024, 1992.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Thomas F, Arriagada R, Spielmann M, et al. Pattern of failure in patients with inflammatory breast cancer treated by alternating radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Cancer 76: 2286–2290, 1995.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Ayash L, Elias A, Ibrahim J, et al. High-dose multimodality therapy with autologous stem cell support for stage IIIB breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 16: 1000–1007, 1998.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Cagnoni PJ, Nieto Y, Shpall EJ, et al. High-dose chemotherapy with autologous progenitor cell support as part of combined modality therapy for inflammatory breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 16: 1661–1668, 1998.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Nieto Y, Cagnoni PJ, Shpall EJ, et al. Predictive model for relapse after high-dose chemotherapy with peripheral blood progenitor cell support for high-risk primary breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 5: 3425–3431, 1999.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Nieto Y, Nawaz S, Cagnoni PJ, et al. Overexpression of Her-2/neu (H2N), but not p53 mutations, is a poor prognostic factor in high-risk primary breast cancer (HRPBC) treated with high-dose chemotherapy (HDC) and autologous stem-cell transplant (ASCT). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 18: 77a, 1999.Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Somlo G, Doroshow JH, Forman SJ, et al. High-dose chemotherapy and stem-cell rescue in the treatment of high-risk breast cancer: Prognostic indicators of progression-free and overall survival. J Clin Oncol 15: 2882–2893, 1997.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Crump M, Goss PE, Prince M, et al. Outcome of extensive evaluation before adjuvant therapy in women with breast cancer and ten or more positive axillary lymph nodes. J Clin Oncol 14: 66–69, 1996.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    García-Carbonero R, Hidalgo M, Paz-Ares L, et al. Patient selection in high-dose chemotherapy trials: Relevance in high-risk breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 15: 3178–3184, 1997.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Rodenhuis S, Richel DJ, van der Wall E, et al. Randomised trial of high-dose chemotherapy and haempopoietic progenitor-cell support in operable breast cancer with extensive axillary involvement. Lancet 352: 515–521, 1998.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Hortobagyi GN, Buzdar AU, Champlin R, et al. Lack of efficacy of adjuvant high-dose tandem combination chemotherapy for high-risk primary breast cancer - A randomized trial. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 17: 123a, 1998.Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Dunphy FR, Spitzer G, Buzdar AU, et al. Treatment of estrogen receptor-negative or hormonally refractory breast cancer with double high-dose chemotherapy intensification and bone marrow support. J Clin Oncol 8: 1207–1216, 1990.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Neidhart JE, Kohler W, Stidley C, et al. A phase I study of repeated cycles of high-dose cyclophosphamide, etoposide and cisplatin administered without bone marrow transplantation. J Clin Oncol 8: 1728–1738, 1990.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Peters WP, Rosner G, Vredenburgh J, et al. A prospective, randomized comparison of two doses of combination alkylating agents as consolidation after CAF in high-risk primary breast cancer involving ten or more axillary lymph nodes: Preliminary results of CALGB 9082/SWOG 9114/NCIC MA-13. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 18: 1a, 1999.Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Bezwoda WR. Randomised, controlled trial of high dose chemotherapy (HDCNVp) versus standard dose (CAF) chemotherapy for high risk, surgically treated, primary breast cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 18: 2a, 1999.Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    The Scandinavian Study Group 9401. Results from a randomized adjuvant breast cancer study with high dose chemotherapy with CTCb supported by autologous bone marrow stem cells versus dose escalated and tailored FEC therapy. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 18: 2a, 1999.Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Philip T, Chauvin F, Bron D, et al. PARMA international protocol: Pilot study on 50 patients and preliminary analysis of the ongoing randomized study (62 patients). Ann Oncol 2: 57–64 (Suppl), 1991.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Bron D, Philip T, Guglielmi C, et al. The PARMA international randomized study in relpased non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Analysis on the first 153 preincluded patients. Exp Hematol 19 (6): 546, 1991.Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Philip T, Guglielmi C, Hagenbeek A, et al. Autologous bone marrow transplantation as compared with salvage chemotherapy in relapses of chemotherapy-sensitive non-Hodgkins’s lymphoma. N Engl J Med 333: 1540–1545, 1995.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Ross AA, Cooper BW, Lazarus HM, et al: Detection and viability of tumor cells in peripheral blood stem cell collections from breast cancer patients using immunocytochemical and clonogenic assay techniques. Blood 82: 2605, 1993.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Schoenfeld A, Kruger KH, Gomm J, et al. The detection of micrometastases in the peripheral blood and bone marrow of patients with breast cancer using immunohistochemistry and reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction for keratin 19. Eur J Cancer 33: 854–861, 1997.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Datta YH, Adams PT, Drobyski WR, Ethier SP, Terry VH, Roth MS. Sensitive detection of occult breast cancer by the reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. J Clin Oncol 12: 475–482, 1994.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Fields KK, Elfenbein GJ, Trudeau WL. Clinical significance of bone marrow metastases in patients with breast cancer undergoing high-dose chemotherapy and autologous bone marrow transplantation. J Clin Oncol 14: 1868–1876, 1996.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Franklin W, Shpall EJ, Archer P, et al: Immunocytochemical detection of breast cancer cells in marrow and peripheral blood of patients undergoing high dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell support. Breast Cancer Res Treat 41: 1–13, 1996.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Sharp JC, Kessinger A, Mann S, et al: Detection and clinical significance of minimal tumor cell contamination of peripheral blood stem cell harvests. Int J Cell Clon 10 (suppl 1): 92–94, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Vredenburgh J, Silva O, Broadwater G, et al: The significance of tumor contamination in the bone marrow from high-risk primary breast cancer patients treated with high-dose chemotherapy and hematopoietic support. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 3: 91–97, 1997.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Umiel T, Moss TJ, Cooper B, et al. The prognostic value of bone marrow micrometastases in stage II/III breast cancer patients undergoing autologous transplant (ABMT) therapy. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 17: 79a, (abstract #306), 1998.Google Scholar
  125. 125.
    Cooper BW, Moss TJ, Ross AA, Ybanez J, and Lazarus HM. Occult tumor contamination of hematopoietic stem-cell product does not affect clinical outcome of autologous transplantation in patients with metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 16: 3509–3517, 1998.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Shpall EJ, Jones RB, Bast RC, et al: 4-Hydroperoxycyclophosphamide purging of breast cancer from the mononuclear cell fraction of bone marrow in patients receiving high-dose chemotherapy and autologous marrow support: A phase I trial. J Clin Oncol 9: 85–93, 1991.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Shpall EJ, Bast RC, Joines WT, et al: Immunomagnetic purging of breast cancer from bone marrow for autologous transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplantation 7: 145–151, 1991.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Anderson IC, Shpall EJ, Leslie DS, et al. Elimination of malignant clonogenic breast cancer cells from human bone marrow. Cancer Res 15: 4659, 1989.Google Scholar
  129. 129.
    Vredenburgh JJ, Hussein A, Rubin P, et al: High-dose chemotherapy and immunomagnetically purged peripheral blood progenitor cells and bone marrow for metastatic breast carcinoma. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 15: 339, 1996.Google Scholar
  130. 130.
    Krause DS, Fackler MJ, Civin CI, and Stratford May W: CD34: Structure, biology and clinical utility. Blood 87: 1–13, 1996.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    Shpall EJ, Jones RB, Bearman SI, et al: Transplantation of enriched CD34positive autologous marrow into breast cancer patients following high-dose chemotherapy: Influence of CD34-positive peripheral-blood progenitors and growth factors on engraftment. J Clin Oncol 12: 28–36, 1994.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  132. 132.
    Shpall EJ, Bearman SI, Cagnoni PJ, et al. Long-term follow-up of CD34positive hematopoietic progenitor cell support for breast cancer patients receiving high-dose chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol(In press).Google Scholar
  133. 133.
    University of Colorado, unpublished observations.Google Scholar
  134. 134.
    Mohr M, Hilgenfeld E, Fietz B, et al. Efficacy and safety of simultaneous immunomagnetic CD34+ cell selection and breast cancer cell purging in peripheral blood progenitor cell samples used for hematopoietic rescue after high-dose therapy. Clin Cancer Res 5: 1035–1040, 1999.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  135. 135.
    Ueno NT, Rondón G, Mirza NQ, et al. Allogeneic peripheral-blood progenitor-cell transplantation for poor-risk patients with metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 16: 986–993, 1998.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  136. 136.
    Khouri IF, Keating M, Körbling M, et al. Transplant-lite: Induction of graftversus-malignancy using fludarabine-based nonablative chemotherapy and allogeneic blood progenitor-cell transplantation as treatment for lymphoid malignancies. J Clin Oncol 16: 2817–2824, 1998.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  137. 137.
    Steinman RM. The dendritic cell system and its role in immunogenicity. Ann Rev Immunol 9: 271–296, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. 138.
    Press O, Eary J, Appelbaum J, et al. Radiolabeled antibody therapy of B-cell lymphoma with autologous bone marrow support. N Engl J Med 329: 1219, 1993.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. 139.
    Kaminski M, Fig L, Zasadny K, et al. Imaging, dosimetry, and radioimmunotherapy with iodine-131-labeled anti-CD37 antibody in B-cell lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 10: 1696, 1992.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  140. 140.
    Kaminski MS, Gribbin T, Estes J, et al. I-131 antibody for previously untreatd follicular lymphoma: clinical and molecular remissions. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 17: 2a, 1998.Google Scholar
  141. 141.
    Cagnoni PJ, Ceriani RL, Cole W, et al. Phase I study of high-dose radioimmunotherapy with 90-Y-hu-BrE-3 followed by autologous stem cell support (ASCS) in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Seventh Conference on Radioimmunodetection and Radioimmunotherapy of Cancer, Princeton, NJ, 1998.Google Scholar
  142. 142.
    Slamon DJ, Clark G, Wong S, et al. Human breast cancer: correlation of relapse and survival with amplification of the Her-2/neu oncogene. Science 2235: 177–181, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. 143.
    Baselga J, Tripathy D, Mendelsohn J, et al. Phase II study of weekly intravenous recombinant humanized anti-p185HER2 monoclonal antibody in patients with HER2/neu-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 14: 737–744, 1996.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  144. 144.
    Slamon DL. Alteration of the HER-2/neu gene in human breast cancer: Diagnostic and therapeutic implications. Rosenthal Award Lecture at the 90th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR), Philadelphia, PA, 1999.Google Scholar
  145. 145.
    Pegram MD, Lipton A, Hayes DF. Phase II study of receptor-enhanced chemosensitivity using recombinant humanized anti-pl85R2 neu monoclonal antibody plus cisplatin in patients with HER2/neu-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer refractory to chemotherapy treatment. J Clin Oncol 16: 2659–2671, 1998.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  146. 146.
    Slamon D, Leyland-Jones B, Shak S, et al. Addition of Herceptin9 (humanized anti-her2 antibody) to first line chemotherapy for her2 overexpressing metastatic breast cancer markedly increases anticancer activity: A randomized, multinational controlled phase III trial. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 17: 98a, 1998.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yago Nieto
  • Elizabeth J. Shpall
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Colorado Bone Marrow Transplant ProgramUSA

Personalised recommendations