Primary therapy with ECF in combination with a GnRH analog in premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive T2–T4 breast cancer

Ovarian Function and Fertility Preservation in Breast Cancer: Should Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Agonist be administered to All Premenopausal Patients Receiving Chemotherapy?

Chemotherapy-induced premature ovarian insufficiency (POI) is one of the potential drawbacks of chemotherapy use of particular concern for newly diagnosed premenopausal breast cancer patients. Temporary ovarian suppression obtained pharmacologically with the administration of a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) during chemotherapy has been specifically developed as a method to counteract chemotherapy-induced gonadotoxicity with the main goal of diminishing the risk of POI. In recent years, important clinical evidence has become available on the efficacy and safety of this strategy that should now be considered a standard option for ovarian function preservation in premenopausal breast cancer patients, including women who are not interested in conceiving after treatment or that would not be candidates for fertility preservation strategies because of their age. Nevertheless, in women interested in fertility preservation, this is not an alternative to gamete cryopreservation, which remains as the first option to be offered. In this setting, temporary ovarian suppression with GnRHa during chemotherapy should be also proposed following gamete cryopreservation or to women who have no access, refuse, or have contraindications to surgical fertility preservation techniques. In this article, we present an overview about the role of temporary ovarian suppression with GnRHa during chemotherapy in breast cancer patients by addressing the available clinical evidence with the aim of identifying both the best candidates for the use of this strategy and the still existing gray zones requiring further investigation.

FDG PET/CT for prognostic stratification of patients with metastatic breast cancer treated with first line systemic therapy: Comparison of EORTC criteria and PERCIST

Aim

Evaluate response and predict prognosis of patients with newly diagnosed metastatic breast cancer treated with first line systemic therapy using European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) criteria and PET Response Criteria in solid Tumours (PERCIST).

Methods

From December 2006 to August 2013, 57 women with newly diagnosed metastatic breast cancer were retrospectively evaluated. FDG-PET/CT was performed within one month before treatment and repeated after at least 3 cycles of treatment. Metabolic response evaluation was evaluated by two readers according to both EORTC criteria and PERCIST, classifying the patients into 4 response groups: complete metabolic response (CMR), partial metabolic response (PMR), stable metabolic disease (SMD), and progressive metabolic disease (PMD).

Results

With EORTC criteria, 22 patients had CMR, 17 PMR, 6 SMD and 12 PMD. With PERCIST, 20 patients had CMR, 15 PMR, 10 SMD and 12 PMD. There was agreement between EORTC and PERCIST in 84% of the patients. By log-rank analysis, metabolic response evaluated with both EORTC criteria and PERCIST was able to predict overall survival (p = 0.028 and 0.002 respectively). CMR patient group had longer median OS than patients in the combined PMR+SMD+PMD group (60 vs 26 months both with EORTC and PERCIST; p = 0.009 and 0.006 respectively). By multivariate analysis, CMR either with EORTC or PERCIST remained an independent predictor of survival.

Conclusion

Metabolic response evaluation with EORTC criteria and PERCIST gave similar prognostic stratification for metastatic breast cancer treated with a first line of systemic therapy.

The prognostic significance of the insulin-like growth factor-1 ligand and receptor expression in breast cancer tissue

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Previous in vitro studies have suggested that IGF-1 stimulation can lead a more aggressive breast cancers and subsequent poor prognosis in breast cancer patients. We aim to how IGF-1 and IGF-1R mRNA levels in breast cancer are associated with disease-free survival (DFS) and other clinicopathological factors.

METHODS

IGF-1 and IGF-1R mRNA levels were measured in breast cancer tissue from 132 patients using real-time PCR. DFS and clinicopathological information were obtained from patient case notes.

RESULTS

IGF-1 and IGF-1R mRNA levels did not correlate with any clinicopathological factors. Patients who relapsed had lower IGF-1 mRNA levels in their tumour tissue compared to those who remained disease-free during the 5-year follow-up period. Patients who had ER-positive breast cancers with high IGF-1 mRNA levels had longer DFS compared to those with low IGF-1 mRNA levels. IGF-1 mRNA levels was not associated with DFS in patients with ER-negative cancers. IGF-1R mRNA levels was not associated with DFS in any subgroup analysis. Multivariate analysis showed that IGF-1 mRNA levels and histopathological grade were independent predictors of DFS.

CONCLUSIONS

Breast cancer tissue IGF-1 expression is a favourable prognostic indicator and could be used in clinical setting in planning for adjuvant treatment.

Phase II trial of combination of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, cisplatin, and infusional 5-fluorouracil (CCF) plus trastuzumab as preoperative treatment for locally advanced and inflammatory breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) was shown as active but less toxic compared to doxorubicin in advanced breast cancer. Given its low cardiotoxicity, the combination of PLD and trastuzumab appears most attractive in the treatment of human epidermal factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We investigated the activity of 8 courses of PLD in combination with cisplatin and infusional 5-fluorouracil (CCF) plus 3-week trastuzumab in patients with primary or recurrent cT2-T4 a-d, N0-3, M0 any estrogen receptor (ER), HER2-positive breast cancer. Patients with ER and/or progesterone receptor (PgR) ≥ 10% tumors received also letrozole (plus triptorelin if premenopausal). The principal endpoint was clinical response rate; secondary endpoints were the pathologic complete response rate (pCR) and the cardiac safety of the combination.

RESULTS

Thirty-two patients were enrolled in the study and all are evaluable for response and toxicity. Fifteen patients (47%) had ER-positive tumors, 15 patients and 2 patients had ER absent and ER poor tumors, respectively. Thirteen patients (41%) had inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) and 84% of patients had clinically positive nodes. A clinical response rate of 94% (95% CI, 79%-99%) and a pCR rate of 41% (95% CI, 24%-59%) were observed. Fifty-four percent of patients with IBC obtained a pCR. Eleven patients discontinued treatment before completing 8 courses as planned. No patient developed relevant cardiac toxicity.

CONCLUSION

In this series of very locally advanced breast cancer, the combination of CCF and trastuzumab was very active obtaining an impressive rate of pCR, particularly in IBC, which merits further investigation in larger series.

Preoperative weekly cisplatin-epirubicin-paclitaxel with G-CSF support in triple-negative large operable breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Findings from our previously published phase II study showed a high pathologic complete remission (pCR) rate in patients with triple-negative large operable breast cancer after the administration of eight cisplatin-epirubicin-paclitaxel (PET) weekly cycles. The safety and efficacy data of the initial population were updated, with inclusion of additional experience with the same therapy.

METHODS

Patients with triple-negative large operable breast cancer (T2-T3 N0-1; T > 3 cm) received eight preoperative weekly cycles of cisplatin 30 mg/m2, epirubicin 50 mg/m2, paclitaxel (Taxol) 120 mg/m2, with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (5 microg/kg days 3-5) support.

RESULTS

Overall 74 consecutive patients (T2/T3 = 35/39; N0/N+ = 26/48) were treated, from May 1999 to May 2008. At pathological assessment, 46 women (62%; 95% confidence interval 50-73) showed pCR in both breast and axilla. At a 41-month median follow-up (range 3-119), 13 events (nine distant metastases) had occurred, 5-year projected disease-free survival (DFS) and distant disease-free survival being 76% and 84%, respectively. Five-year DFS was 90% and 56% in pCRs and non-pCRs, respectively. Severe neutropenia and anemia occurred in 23 (31%) and eight (10.8%) patients, respectively. Severe non-hematological toxicity was recorded in <20% of patients. Peripheral neuropathy was quite frequent but never severe.

CONCLUSIONS

Eight weekly PET cycles are a highly effective primary treatment in women with triple-negative large operable breast cancer. This approach results in a very promising long-term DFS in this poor prognosis population. This triplet regimen is worthy of evaluation in phase III trials.