Dose in (Adjuvant) Chemotherapy of Breast Cancer

Part of the Cancer Treatment and Research book series (CTAR, volume 151)

Dose and dose intensity issues in breast cancer have been extensively discussed during the past few years; however, precise information is rare. Pharmacokinetic data are limited for the majority of the compounds we use. If available at all they show a large interindividual variability. Dose response relationships, even for the most commonly used drugs, have not been well investigated. In general, dosing within given chemotherapy regimens is far more toxicity than efficacy driven. In combinations, tolerable doses of single drugs are generally lower than in sequential regimens. It is therefore difficult to investigate separately the effects of dose intensity, dose density and scheduling. The following text tries to resume the available important clinical data. As remission rates in metastatic disease, especially in high-dose settings, are questionable surrogate parameters for outcome, the text focuses, as far as possible, on survival data from adjuvant randomized trials.


Breast Cancer Dose Intensity High Dose Chemotherapy Node Positive Patient Weekly Paclitaxel 


  1. 1.
    Skipper HE, Schabel FM Jr, Mellett LB, et al. Implications of biochemical, cytokinetic, pharmacologic, and toxicologic relationships in the design of optimal therapeutic schedules. Cancer Chemother Rep. 1970;54(6):431–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Norton L, Simon R. The Norton-Simon hypothesis revisited. Cancer Treat Rep. 1986;70(1):163–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hryniuk W, Frei E III, Wright FA. A single scale for comparing dose-intensity of all chemotherapy regimens in breast cancer: Summation dose-intensity. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16(9):3137–47.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fisher B, Anderson S, Wickerham DL, De Cillis A, 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 an Bowel Project B22. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15:1858–69.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fisher B, Anderson S, Wickerham DL, De Cillis A, et al. Further evaluation of intensified and increased total dose of cyclophosphamide for the treatment of primary breast cancer: Findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast an Bowel Project B25, J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:3374–88.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bonneterre J, Rochè H, Kerbrat P, et al. 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. 2005;23(12):2686–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    French Adjuvant Study Group, Benefit fo 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. 2001;19(3):602–11.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Henderson IC, Berry DA, Demetri GD, et al. 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. 2003;21:976–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Engelsman E, Klijn JCM, Rubens RD, et al. “Classical” CMF versus a 3-weekly intravenous CMF schedule in postmenopausal patients with advanced breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 1991;27(8):966–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bonnadonna G, Valagussa P, et al. Dose-response effect of adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. New Engl J Med. 1981;304:10–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Piccart, MJ, Di Leo A, Beauduin M, et al. 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. 2001;19(12):3103–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wood WC, Budman DR, Korzun AH, et al. Dose and dose intensity of adjuvant chemotherapy for Stage II, node-positive breast carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 1994;330(18):1253–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Linden HM, Haskell CM, Green SJ, et al. Sequenced compared with simultaneous anthracycline and cyclophosphamide in high-risk Stage I and II breast cancer: Final Analysis from INT-0137 (S9313). J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(6):656–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Citron ML, Berry DA, Cirrincione C, et al. Randomized trial of dose-dense conventionally scheduled and sequential versus concurrent combination chemotherapy as postoperative adjuvant treatment of node-positive primary breast cancer: First report of intergroup Trial C 9741/ Cancer and Leukemia Group B Trial 9741. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(8):1431–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Francis P, Crown J, Di Leo A, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy with sequential or concurrent anthracycline and docetaxel: Breast International Group 02 98 Randomized Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100(2):121–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sparano JA, Wang M, Martino S, et al. Weekly paclitaxel in the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(16):1663–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Moebus V, Lueck HJ, Thomssen C, et al. Dose-dense sequential chemotherapy with epirubicin (E), paclitaxel (T) and cyclophosphamide (C) (ETC) in comparison to conventional dosed chemotherapy in high breast cancer patients (4+ LN). Mature results of an AGO trial. San Antonio Breast cancer symposium (2006).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tallman MS, Gray R, Robert NJ, et al. Conventional adjuvant chemotherapy with or without high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem-cell transplantation in high-risk breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(1):17–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Leonard R, Lind M, Twelves C, et al. Conventional adjuvant chemotherapy versus single-cycle, autograft-supported, high-dose, late-intensification chemotherapy in high-risk breast cancer patients: A randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96(14):1076–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Roché H, Viens P, Biron P, et al. High-dose chemotherapy for breast cancer: the French PEGASE experience. Cancer Control. 2003;10(1):42–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zander AR, Kroeger N, Schmoor C, et al. High-dose chemotherapy with autologous hematopoietic stem-cell support compared with standard-dose chemotherapy in breast cancer patients with 10 or more positive lymph nodes: First results of a randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(12):2273–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zander AR, Schmoor C, Kröger N, et al. Randomized trial of high-dose adjuvant chemotherapy with autologous hematopoietic stem-cell support versus standard-dose chemotherapy in breast cancer patients with 10 or more positive lymph nodes: overall survival after 6 years of follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2008;19(6):1082–9.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Moore HCF, Green SJ, Gralow JR, et al. Intensive dose-dense compared with high-dose adjuvant chemotherapy for high-risk operable breast cancer: Southwest Oncology Group/Intergroup Study 9623. J Clin Oncol 2007;25(13):1677–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rodenhuis S, Bontenbal M, Beex LV, et al. High-dose chemotherapy with hematopoetic stem-cell rescue for high risk breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(1):7–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Peters W, Rosner GL, Vredenburgh JJ, et al. Prospective, randomized comparison of high-dose chemotherapy with stem-cell support versus intermediate-dose chemotherapy after surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy in women with high-risk primary breast cancer: A report of CALGB 9082, SWOG 9114, and NCIC MA-13. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(10):2191–200.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bergh J, Wiklund T, Erikstein B, et al. Tailored fluorouracil, epirubicin and cyclophosphamide compared with marrow-supported high-dose chemotherapy as adjuvant treatment for high-risk breast cancer: A randomised trial. Lancet. 2000;356(9239):1384–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gianni A, Sienna S, Bregni M, et al. Efficacy, toxicity, and applicability of high-dose sequential chemotherapy as adjuvant treatment in operable breast cancer with 10 or more involved axillary nodes: Five-year results. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15(6):2312–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nitz U, Mohrmann S, Fischer J, et al. Comparison of rapidly cycled tandem high-dose chemotherapy plus peripheral-blood stem-cell support versus dose-dense conventional chemotherapy for adjuvant treatment of high-risk breast cancer: Results of a multicentre phase III trial. Lancet. 2005;366(9501):1935–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Basser R, O'Neill A, Martinelli G, et al. Multicycle dose-intensive chemotherapy for women with high-risk primary breast cancer: Results of International Breast Cancer Study Group Trial 15-95. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(3):370–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Berry D, Ueno N, Johnson MM, et al. High-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem-cell support versus standard-dose chemotherapy: Meta-analysis of individual patient data from 15 randomized adjuvant breast cancer trials. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2007;106(Suppl 1):Abstr 11.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gluz O, Nitz UA, Harbeck N, et al. Triple-negative high-risk breast cancer derives particular benefit from dose intensification of adjuvant chemotherapy: Results of WSG AM-01 trial. Ann Oncol. 2008;19(5):861–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Niderrhein Breast CentreMönchengladbachGermany

Personalised recommendations