Treatment of Early Breast Cancer With Adriamycin-Cyclophosphamide With or Without Radiation Therapy: Initial Results of a Brief and Effective Adjuvant Program

  • S. E. Salmon
  • A. Wendt
  • S. E. Jones
  • R. Jackson
  • G. Giordano
  • R. Miller
  • R. Heusinkveld
  • T. E. Moon
Part of the Recent Results in Cancer Research book series (RECENTCANCER, volume 68)


We initiated study of the combination of adriamycin and cyclophosphamide (A–C) for advanced breast cancer at the University of Arizona in 1973 [12]. That study was based on evidence that both agents were quite active individually, had different mechanisms of action, and were useful in relatively low growth fraction solid tumors. Results of our initial study plus those obtained simultaneously by workers at the Southern Research Institute [4] suggested that the A–C combination was synergistic or potentiating. We observed an overall objective response rate of 78% in 51 patients with advanced breast cancer who had not recceived prior chemotherapy [12]. A number of subsequent trails in advanced breast cancer using A–C plus other drugs (e.g., 5-fluorouracil) have yielded almost identical results [2, 8], suggesting that A–C is the active component of these regimens. The high response rate, acceptable toxicity, and ease of administration to advanced breast cancer patients encouraged us to initiate a surgical adjuvant breast cancer program with this regimen. We reasoned that a relatively brief adjuvant program could be formulated with both drugs administered intensively to eradicate a minimum number of occult micrometastases. Furthermore, we believed that the duration of therapy could be related to the tumor stage as defined by pathologic staging (e.g., more treatment for more advanced stages). The kinetic considerations applied in design of this trial are summarized elsewhere [15]. Thus, in mid-1974 we initiated the Arizona Breast Cancer Adjuvant Program [9, 11, 14]. This report summarizes the updated preliminary results as of May 1978.


Breast Cancer Advanced Breast Cancer Minimal Residual Disease Bone Scan Adjuvant Trial 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bonadonna, G., Rossi, A., Valagussa, P. et al.: Adjuvant chemotherapy with CMF in breast cancer with positive axillary nodes. In: Adjuvant therapy of cancer. Salmon, S., Jones, S. (eds.), pp. 83-94. Amsterdam: Elsevier/North Holland 1977.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bull, J. M., Tormey, D. C., Li, S-H et al.: A randomized comparative trial of Adriamycin versus Methotrexate in combination drug therapy. Cancer 41, 1649–1657 (1978).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buzdar, A. U., Gutterman, J. V., Blumenschein, G. R. et al.: Intensive postoperative chemoimmunotherapy for patients with stage II and stage III breast cancer. Cancer 41, 1064–1075 (1978).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Corbett, T., Griswold, D., Mayo, J. et al.: Cyclophosphamide-adriamycin combination chemotherapy of transplantable Murine tumors. Cancer Res. 35, 1568–1573 (1975).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ewy, G., Jones, S., Groves, B.: Adriamycin heart disease. Ariz. Med. 33, 274–278 (1976).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fisher, B. et al.: L-Phenylalanine Mustard (L-PAM) in the management of primary breast cancer: A report of early findings. New Engl. J. Med. 292, 117–122 (1975).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gehan, E.: A generalized Wilcoxon test for comparing arbitrarily singly-censored samples. Biometrika 52, 203–223 (1965).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gutterman, J. V., Cardenas, J. O., Blumenschein, G. R. et al.: Chemoimmunotherapy of advanced breast cancer: Prolongation of remission and survival with BCG. Br. Med. J. 1976 II, 1222-1225.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hammond, N., Jones, S., Salmon, S. et al.: Adjuvant treatment of breast cancer with Adriamycin-Cyclophosphamide with or without radiation therapy. In: Adjuvant therapy of cancer. Salmon, S., Jones, S. (eds.), pp. 153-160. Amsterdam: Elsevier/North Holland 1977.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hammond, N., Jones, S., Salmon, S. et al.: Predictive value of bone scans in an adjuvant breast cancer program. Cancer 41, 138–142 (1978).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jones, S.: Clinical oncology in Arizona. Chemotherapy of breast cancer — investigational treatment. Ariz. Med. 31, 197–198 (1974).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jones, S., Durie, B., Salmon, S.: Combination chemotherapy with Adriamycin and Cyclophosphamide for advanced breast cancer. Cancer 36, 90–97 (1975).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kaplan, E., Meier, P.: Non-parametric estimations from incomplete observations. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 53, 457–481 (1958).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Salmon, S. E.: Progress in adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer. Ariz. Med. 32, 108–109 (1975).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Salmon, S. E.: Kinetic rationale for adjuvant chemotherapy of cancer. In: adjuvant therapy of cancer. Salmon, S., Jones, S. (eds.), pp. 3-14. Amsterdam: Elsevier/North Holland 1977.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Salmon, S. E.: Kinetics of minimal residual disease. In: Adjuvant Therapies and Markers of Post-Surgical Minimal Residual Disease I. Bonadonna, G., Mathé, G., Salmon, S. E. (eds.), RRCR 67, pp. 5-15. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer 1979.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tormey, D. C., Simon, R. C., Lippman, M. E. et al.: Evaluation of Tamoxifen dose in advanced breast cancer: a progress report. Cancer Treat. Rep. 60, 1451–1459 (1976).PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin · Heidelberg 1979

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. E. Salmon
  • A. Wendt
  • S. E. Jones
  • R. Jackson
  • G. Giordano
  • R. Miller
  • R. Heusinkveld
  • T. E. Moon

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations