Advertisement

Advances in Adjuvant Chemotherapy of Early Stage Breast Cancer

  • Heather L. Mcarthur
  • Clifford A. Hudis
Part of the Cancer Treatment and Research book series (CTAR, volume 141)

Breast cancer is an increasing global public health burden with more than one million new cases anticipated worldwide1 and more than 200,000 new cases anticipated in the United States in 2007 (www.cancer.org). Early stage disease accounts for an increasing proportion of these incident breast cancer diagnoses, largely as a result of improvements in public education, screening programs, technology and treatment However, despite the increasing proportion of early stage diagnoses, a significant proportion of women will experience a distant relapse leading to death from recurrence-related complications. These distant treatment failures indicate that some women have clinically undetectable micrometastatic disease at diagnosis which cannot be cured with locoregional therapy alone. Systemic chemotherapy aimed at eradicating these clinically occult micrometases is thus an integral component of the adjuvant treatment strategy for many women with early stage disease. Over the last several decades, investigators have endeavored to optimize disease specific outcomes and thus, improve patient survival through therapeutic innovation, while minimizing treatment-related toxicity. These efforts have manifested as refinements of the adjuvant chemotherapy prescription; innovations in scheduling, drug delivery and dosing; and the incorporation of biologic/targeted therapies. Specific advances in the adjuvant chemotherapy strategy for women with early stage breast cancer will be reviewed here.

Keywords

Breast Cancer Clin Oncol Early Stage Breast Cancer Relative Dose Intensity National Surgical Adjuvant Breast 
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.
    World Cancer Report. Lyon, France: World Health Organization; 2003.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berry D. A., K. A. Cronin, S. K. Plevritis, et al., 2005. Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. New Engl J Med 353(17):1784–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Elkin E. B., A. Hurria, N. Mitra, D. Schrag, K. S. Panageas. 2006. Adjuvant chemotherapy and survival in older women with hormone receptor-negative breast cancer: assessing outcome in a population-based, observational cohort. J Clin Oncol 24(18):2757–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bonadonna G., E. Brusamolino, P. Valagussa, et al. 1976. Combination chemotherapy as an adjuvant treatment in operable breast cancer. New Engl J Med 294(8):405–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bonadonna G, P. Valagussa, A. Moliterni, M. Zambetti, C. Brambilla. 1995. Adjuvant cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) in node positive breast cancer: the results of 20 years of follow-up. New Engl J Med 332:901–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group. Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and a 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet 2005;365:1687–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bonneterre J., H. Roche, P. Kerbrat, et al., 2005. Epirubicin increases long-term survival in adjuvant chemotherapy of patients with poor-prognosis, node-positive, early breast cancer: 10-year follow-up results of the French Adjuvant Study Group 05 randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 23(12):2686–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kerbrat P., H. Roche, J. M. Bonneterre, et al., 2002. Can we substitute an epirubicin-vinorelbine regimen to 6 cycles of FEC 100 (FEC100) as adjuvant chemotherapy of operable, node-positive (N+) breast cancer (BC) patients (pts)? 5-year follow-up results of French adjuvant study group, FASG-09 trial. In: ASCO Annual Meeting. Orlando.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Levine M., V. Bramwell, K. Pritchard, et al., 1998. Randomized Trial of intensive cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and fluorouracil chemotherapy compared with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil in premenopausal women with node-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 16:2651–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Levine M. N., K. I. Pritchard, V. H. Bramwell, L. E. Shepherd, D. Tu, N. Paul. 2005. Randomized trial comparing cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and fluorouracil with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil in premenopausal women with node-positive breast cancer: update of National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group Trial MA5. J Clin Oncol 23(22):5166–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fisher B., A. M. Brown, N. V. Dimitrov, et al., 1990. Two months of doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide with and without interval reinduction therapy compared with 6 months of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil in positive-node breast cancer patients with tamoxifen-nonresponsive tumors: results from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-15. J Clin Oncol 8(9):1483–96.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fisher B., S. Anderson, E. Tan-Chiu, et al., 2001. Tamoxifen and chemotherapy for axillary node-negative, estrogen receptor-negative breast cancer: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-23. J Clin Oncol 19(4):931–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mouridsen H., J. Andersen, M. Andersson, et al., 1999. Adjuvant anthracycline in breast cancer: Improved outcome in premenopausal patients following substitution of methotrexate in the CMF combination with epirubicin. J Clin Oncol 18(68):Abstract 254.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fisher B., S. Anderson, D. Wickerham, et al., 1997. 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 15:1858–69.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fisher B., S. Anderson, A. DeCillis, et al., 1999. Further evaluation of intensified and increased total dose of cyclophosphamide for the treatment of primary breast cancer: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-25. J Clin Oncol 17:3374–88.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Budman D., D. Berry, C. Cirrincione, et al., 1998. Dose and dose intensity as determinants of outcome in the adjvuant treatment of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 90(16):1205–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Henderson I. C., D. A. Berry, G. D. Demetri, et al., 2003. Improved outcomes from adding sequential Paclitaxel but not from escalating Doxorubicin dose in an adjuvant chemotherapy regimen for patients with node-positive primary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 21(6):976–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Piccart M. J., A. Di Leo, M. Beauduin, et al., 2001. Phase III trial comparing two dose levels of epirubicin combined with cyclophosphamide with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil in node-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 19(12):3103–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    French Epirubicin Study G. 2001. Benefit of a high-dose epirubicin regimen in adjuvant chemotherapy for node-positive breast cancer patients with poor prognostic factors: 5-year follow-up results of french adjuvant study group 05 randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 19(3):602–11.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Galligioni E., G. Cetto, O. Nascimben, et al., 1997. Adjuvant chemotherapy with high dose epirubicin and cyclophosphamide versus cyclophosphamide (EC), methotrexate, fluorouracil (CMF) in high risk premenopausal breast cancer patients: a prospective randomized trial. In: ASCO Annual Meeting. Denver.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Peters W. P., M. Ross, J. J. Vredenburgh, et al., 1993. High-dose chemotherapy and autologous bone marrow support as consolidation after standard-dose adjuvant therapy for high-risk primary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 11:1132–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rodenhuis S., D. J. Richel, E. van der Wall, et al., 1998. Randomised trial of high-dose chemotherapy and haemopoietic progenitor-cell support in operable breast cancer with extensive axillary lymph-node involvement. Lancet 352(9127):515–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rodenhuis S. 2000. The status of high-dose chemotherapy in breast cancer. Oncologist 5(5):369–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Moore H. C., S. J. Green, J. R. Gralow, et al., 2007. Intensive Dose-Dense Compared With High-Dose Adjuvant Chemotherapy for High-Risk Operable Breast Cancer: Southwest Oncology Group/Intergroup Study 9623. J Clin Oncol. 25(13):1677–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Poole C. J., H. M. Earl, L. Hiller, et al., 2006. Epirubicin and cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil as adjuvant therapy for early breast cancer. The New Engl J Med 355(18):1851–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bonadonna G., M. Zambetti, P. Valagussa. 1995. Sequential or alternating doxorubicin and CMF regimens in breast cancer with more than three positive nodes. Ten-year results. JAMA 273(7):542–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bonadonna G., M. Zambetti, A. Moliterni, L. Gianni, P. Valagussa. 2004. Clinical relevance of different sequencing of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and Fluorouracil in operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 22(9):1614–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Moliterni A., G. Bonadonna, P. Valagussa, L. Ferrari, M. Zambetti. 1991. Cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil with and without doxorubicin in the adjuvant treatment of resectable breast cancer with one to three positive axillary nodes. J Clin Oncol 9:1124–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mamounas E. P., J. Bryant, B. Lembersky, et al., 2005. Paclitaxel after doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide as adjuvant chemotherapy for node-positive breast cancer: results from NSABP B-28. J Clin Oncol 23(16):3686–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bria E., C. Nistico, F. Cuppone, et al., 2006. Benefit of taxanes as adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer: pooled analysis of 15, 500 patients. Cancer 106(11):2337–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jones S. E., J. Erban, B. Overmoyer, et al., 2005. Randomized phase III study of docetaxel compared with paclitaxel in metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 23(24):5542–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Martin M., T. Pienkowski, J. Mackey, et al., 2005. Adjuvant docetaxel for node-positive breast cancer. New Engl J Med 352(22):2302–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Roche H., P. Fumoleau, M. Spielmann, et al., 2006. Sequential adjuvant epirubicin-based and docetaxel chemotherapy for node-positive breast cancer patients: the FNCLCC PACS 01 Trial. J Clin Oncol 24(36):5664–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sparano J., M. Wang, S. Martino, et al., 2005. Phase III study of doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel or docetaxel given every three weeks or weekly in patients with axillary node-positive or high-risk node-negative breast cancer: results of North American Breast Cancer Intergroup Trial E1199. Breast Can Res Treat 94(Supplement 1) LBA48.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Norton L., R. Simon, J. Brereton, A. Bogden. 1976. Predicting the course of Gompertzian growth. Nature 264:542–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Norton L. 1988. A Gompertzian model of human breast cancer growth. Cancer research 48:7067–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Citron M. L., D. A. Berry, C. Cirrincione, et al., 2003. Randomized trial of dose-dense versus conventionally scheduled and sequential versus concurrent combination chemotherapy as postoperative adjuvant treatment of node-positive primary breast cancer: first report of Intergroup Trial C9741/Cancer and Leukemia Group B Trial 9741. J Clin Oncol 21(8):1431–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Möbus V., M. Untch, A. D. Bois, et al., 2004. Dose-dense sequential chemotherapy with epirubicin(E), paclitaxel (T) and cyclophosphamide (C) (ETC) is superior to conventional dosed chemotherapy in high-risk breast cancer patients (≥ 4 +LN). First results of an AGO-trial. Proc ASCO 22(14S):Abstract 513.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Moebus VJ, Lueck HJ, Thomssen C, Kuhn W, Kurbacher C, Nitz U, Kreienberg R, Untch M, Jackisch C, Schneeweiss A, Huober J, du Bois A. Dose-dense sequential chemotherapy with epirubicin (E), paclitaxel (T) and cyclophosphamide (C) (ETC) in comparison to conventional dosed chemotherapy in high-risk breast cancer patients (≥ 4+ LN). Mature results of an AGO-trial. In: San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. San Antonio; 2006.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Venturini M., E. Aitini, L. Del Mastro, M. R. Sertoli, et. al., Phase III adjuvant trial comparing standard vs accelerated FEC regimen in early breast cancer patients. Results from GONO-M1G1 study. In: San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. San Antonio; 2003.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Venturini M., L. Del Mastro, E. Aitini, et al. 2005. Dose-dense adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer patients: results from a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 97(23):1724–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Burnell M, Levine M, Chapman JA, Bramwell V, Gelmon K, Walley B, Whelan T, Albain K, Perez E, Rugo H, Ding Z, O’Brien P, Shepherd L, Pritchard K. A randomized trial of CEF versus dose dense EC followed by paclitaxel versus AC followed by paclitaxel in women with node positive or high risk node negative breast cancer, NCIC CTG MA.21: Results of an interim analysis. In: San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. San Antonio; 2006.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hudis C. Dose-dense adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. In: ASCO Annual Meeting. Orlando; 2005.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Paik S., S. Shak, G. Tang, et al., 2004. A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. New Engl J Med 351(27):2817–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    van de Vijver M. J., Y. D. He, L. J. van’t Veer, et al., 2002. A gene-expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. New Engl J Med 347(25):1999–2009.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Buyse M, Loi S, van’t Veer L, et al. Validation and clinical utility of a 70-gene prognostic signature for women with node-negative breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006;98(17):1183–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wang Y., J. G. Klijn, Y. Zhang, et al., 2005. Gene-expression profiles to predict distant metastasis of lymph-node-negative primary breast cancer. Lancet 365(9460):671–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Jones S. E., M. A. Savin, F. A. Holmes, et al., 2006. Phase III trial comparing doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide with docetaxel plus cyclophosphamide as adjuvant therapy for operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 24(34):5381–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Gennari A. S. M., M. Puntoni, P. Bruzzi. A pooled analysis on the interaction between HER-2 expression and responsiveness of breast cancer to adjuvant chemotherapy. In: San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. San Antonio; 2006.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Pritchard K. I., L. E. Shepherd, F. P. O’Malley, et al., 2006. HER2 and responsiveness of breast cancer to adjuvant chemotherapy. New Engl J Med 354(20):2103–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Paik S., J. Bryant, C. Park, et al., 1998. erbB-2 and response to doxorubicin in patients with axillary lymph node positive, hormone receptor-negative breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 90(18):1361–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Thor A., D. Bery, D. Budman, et al., 1998. erbB-2, p53 and efficacy of adjuvant therapy in lymph node-positive breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 90(18):1346–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Tanner M., J. Isola, T. Wiklund, et al., 2006. Topoisomerase IIalpha gene amplification predicts favorable treatment response to tailored and dose-escalated anthracycline-based adjuvant chemotherapy in HER-2/neu-amplified breast cancer: Scandinavian Breast Group Trial 9401. J Clin Oncol 24(16):2428–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    O’Malley F. P., S. Chia, D. Tu, et al., Prognostic and predictive value of topoisomerase II alpha in a randomized trial comparing CMF to CEF in premenopausal women with node positive breast cancer (NCIC CTG MA.5). In: ASCO Annual Meeting. Atlanta; 2006.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Therasse P., L. Mauriac, M. Welnicka-Jaskiewicz, et al., 2003. Final results of a randomized phase III trial comparing cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and fluorouracil with a dose-intensified epirubicin and cyclophosphamide + filgrastim as neoadjuvant treatment in locally advanced breast cancer: an EORTC-NCIC-SAKK multicenter study. J Clin Oncol 21(5):843–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Crown J.P., Francis P., Di Leo A., Buyse M., Balil A., Anderson M., Nordenskjöld B., Jakesz R., Gutierrez J., Piccart M. Docetaxel (T) given concurrently with or sequentially to anthracycline-based (A) adjuvant therapy (adjRx) for patients (pts) with node-positive (N+) breast cancer (BrCa), in comparison with non-T adjRx: First results of the BIG 2–98 Trial at 5 years median follow-up (MFU). In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2006 ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings Part I. Vol 24, No. 18S (June 20 Supplement), 2006: LBA519.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Pestalozzi BC, Francis P, Quinaux E, Dolci S, Gelber R, Láng I, Crown JPA, Piccart-Gebhart M. Coordinating Office at the Institut Jules Bordet, Brussels, Belgium. In: Is risk of CNS-relapse related to adjuvant taxane treatment in node-positive breast cancer patients? First results of the CNS-substudy in the intergroup phase III BIG 02–98 trial.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Puhalla S. Y. D., S. Ottman, A. McVey, K. Kendra, E. Mrozek, C. Rhodes, N. J. Merriman, M. Knapp, T. Patel, M. E. Thompson, J. F. Maher, T. D. Moore, C. L. Shapiro. Phase II randomized adjuvant trial of dose-dense docetaxel (DOC) before or after doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC) in axillary node-positive breast cancer. In: San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. San Antonio; 2006.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Deutsch M, Lambert-Falls R, Desch C, Zhou K, Perez E. Epirubicin combined with docetaxel or paclitaxel for node positive breast cancer, an exploratory analysis from a phase III study. In: San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. San Antonio; 2006.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Ellis G. K., Green S. J., Russell C. A., Royce M. E., Perez E.A., Livingston R.B. SWOG 0012, a randomized phase III comparison of standard doxorubicin (A) and cyclophosphamide (C) followed by weekly paclitaxel (T) versus weekly doxorubicin and daily oral cyclophosphamide plus G-CSF (G) followed by weekly paclitaxel as neoadjuvant therapy for inflammatory and locally advanced breast cancer. In: ASCO Annual Meeting. Atlanta; 2006.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Dang C, Smith K, Fornier M, Sugarman S, Troso T, Lake D, D’Andrea G, Seidman A, Sklarin N, George R, Dickler M, Currie V, Gilewski T, Moynahan ME, Drullinsky P, van Poznak C, Robson M, Wasserheit C, Mills N, Steingart R, Norton L, Hudis C. Mature cardiac safety results of dose-dense (DD) doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) followed by paclitaxel (T) with trastuzumab (H) in HER2/neu overexpressed/amplified breast cancer (BCA). In: San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. San Antonio; 2006.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Poole CJ, Hiller L, Howard HC, Loi S, Dunn JA, Canney P, Wardley AM, Crown JP, Coleman RE, Verrill MW, Ellis PA, Leonard RC, Spooner D, Earl HM. Tolerability of gemcitabine in paclitaxel-containing, epirubicin/cyclophosphamide-based, adjuvant chemotherapy in the randomized phase III tAnGo trial for invasive higher risk early stage breast cancer. In: San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. San Antonio; 2006.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Reimer T, Nitz U, Potenberg J, Conrad B, Schuerer U, Raab G, Elling D, Moebus V, v Minckwitz G. Capecitabine as adjuvant treatment in elderly patients with early breast cancer – an interim safety analysis of the ICE study. In: San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. San Antonio; 2006.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Mueller V, Lehnert A, Schmidt M, Glados M, Jackisch C, Heilmann V, Moebus V. Phase I/II study comparing capecitabine alone or in combination with vinorelbine following dose-dense, sequential chemotherapy with epirubicin and paclitaxel in high risk breast cancer patients with ≥4 involved axillary lymph nodes. In: San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. San Antonio; 2006.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Heather L. Mcarthur
    • 1
  • Clifford A. Hudis
    • 1
  1. 1.Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer CenterDepartment of MedicineNew York

Personalised recommendations