Adjuvant chemotherapy plus tamoxifen compared with tamoxifen alone for postmenopausal breast cancer: meta-analysis of quality-adjusted survival

Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Patients with Breast Cancer Based on Clinical and Evolving Oncotype DX Criteria

Introduction

Oncotype DX assay recurrence score (ODX-RS) cut-off values have recently changed after the publication of the TAILOR-X trial results. We aim to explore decisions for adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) based on physicians' clinical assessment and the evolving ODX-RS.

Methodology

Patients who underwent ODX testing after curative surgical resection of estrogen receptor positive (ER+), Her2 non-overexpressed (Her2-) and lymph node-negative (LN-) breast cancer (BC) were eligible. Management of these patients was guided by the results of the old ODX-RS-1 (<18, 18-30, and ≥31) risk grouping. For the purpose of this study, treatment decisions were also assumed according to TAILOR-X results (ODX-RS-2). Decisions of 3 medical oncologists on ACT were solicited by blinding them to the RS to investigate concordance with ODXA RS-1 and 2 recommendations.

Results

Sixty-six consecutive patients were included. Median age was 50.5 (range: 21-73) years. There was 1 male patient, and 37/65 females (56.9%) were premenopausal. Among the 3 oncologists, recommendations for ACT based on clinical assessment were discrepant in 29 (43.9%) patients. Based on majority consensus (≥2 oncologists), ACT would have been recommended to 22/41 (53.7%) and 22/46 (47.82%) patients with low-risk tumors according to ODX-RS-1 and ODX-RS-2, respectively. Compared to ODX-RS-1, ODX-RS-2 identifies 12% (46 vs. 41) more low-risk patients and 66% (20 vs. 12 patients) more high-risk patients.

Conclusion

Overtreatment and discrepancies in the management of patients with ER+/Her2-/LN- early BC can be minimized by the implementation of ODX genomic assay. Some differences in ACT recommendations exist between ODX-RS-1 and ODX-RS-2.

Ovarian suppression for adjuvant treatment of hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Approximately 80% of breast cancers amongst premenopausal women are hormone receptor-positive. Adjuvant endocrine therapy is an integral component of care for hormone receptor-positive breast cancer and in premenopausal women includes oestrogen receptor blockade with tamoxifen, temporary suppression of ovarian oestrogen synthesis by luteinising hormone releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists, and permanent interruption of ovarian oestrogen synthesis with oophorectomy or radiotherapy. Recent international consensus statements recommend single-agent tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors with ovarian function suppression (OFS) as the current standard adjuvant endocrine therapy for premenopausal women (often preceded by chemotherapy). This review examined the role of adding OFS to another treatment (i.e. chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, or both) or comparing OFS to no further adjuvant treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To assess effects of OFS for treatment of premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

For this review update, we searched the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group, MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 8), the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and ClinicalTrials.gov on 26 September 2019. We screened the reference lists of related articles, contacted trial authors, and applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised trials assessing any method of OFS, that is, oophorectomy, radiation-induced ovarian ablation, or LHRH agonists, as adjuvant treatment for premenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer. We included studies that compared (1) OFS versus observation, (2) OFS + chemotherapy versus chemotherapy, (3) OFS + tamoxifen versus tamoxifen, and (4) OFS + chemotherapy + tamoxifen versus chemotherapy + tamoxifen.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Hazard ratios (HRs) were derived for time-to-event outcomes, and meta-analysis was performed using a fixed-effect model. The primary outcome measures were overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Toxicity, contralateral breast cancer, and second malignancy were represented as risk ratios (RRs), and quality of life data were extracted when provided.

MAIN RESULTS

This review update included 15 studies involving 11,538 premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer; these studies were conducted from 1978 to 2014. Some of these treatments are not current standard of care, and early studies did not assess HER2 receptor status. Studies tested OFS versus observation (one study), OFS plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy (six studies), OFS plus tamoxifen versus tamoxifen (six studies), and OFS plus chemotherapy and tamoxifen versus chemotherapy and tamoxifen (two studies). Of those studies that reported the chemotherapy regimen, an estimated 72% of women received an anthracycline. The results described below relate to the overall comparison of OFS versus no OFS. High-certainty evidence shows that adding OFS to treatment resulted in a reduction in mortality (hazard ratio (HR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 0.94; 11 studies; 10,374 women; 1933 reported events). This treatment effect was seen when OFS was added to observation, to tamoxifen, or to chemotherapy and tamoxifen. The effect on mortality was not observed when OFS was added to chemotherapy without tamoxifen therapy (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.09; 5 studies; 3087 women; median follow-up: range 7.7 to 12.1 years). The addition of OFS resulted in improved DFS (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.90; 10 studies; 8899 women; 2757 reported events; high-certainty evidence). The DFS treatment effect persisted when OFS was added to observation, to tamoxifen, and to chemotherapy and tamoxifen. The effect on DFS was reduced when OFS was added to chemotherapy without tamoxifen therapy (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.01; 5 studies; 2450 women). Heterogeneity was low to moderate across studies for DFS and OS (respectively). Evidence suggests that adding OFS slightly increases the incidence of hot flushes (grade 3/4 or any grade; risk ratio (RR) 1.60, 95% CI 1.41 to 1.82; 6 studies; 5581 women; low-certainty evidence, as this may have been under-reported in these studies). Two other studies that could not be included in the meta-analysis reported a higher number of hot flushes in the OFS group than in the no-OFS group. Seven studies involving 5354 women collected information related to mood; however this information was reported as grade 3 or 4 depression, anxiety, or neuropsychiatric symptoms, or symptoms were reported without the grade. Two studies reported an increase in depression, anxiety, and neuropsychiatric symptoms in the OFS group compared to the no-OFS group, and five studies indicated an increase in anxiety in both treatment groups (but no difference between groups) or no difference overall in symptoms over time or between treatment groups. A single study reported bone health as osteoporosis (defined as T score < -2.5); this limited evidence suggests that OFS increases the risk of osteoporosis compared to no-OFS at median follow-up of 5.6 years (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.10 to 28.82; 2011 women; low-certainty evidence). Adding OFS to treatment likely reduces the risk of contralateral breast cancer (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.97; 9 studies; 9138 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Quality of life was assessed in five studies; four studies used validated tools, and the fifth study provided no information on how data were collected. Two studies reported worse quality of life indicators (i.e. vaginal dryness, day and night sweats) for women receiving OFS compared to those in the no-OFS group. The other two studies indicated worsening of symptoms (e.g. vasomotor, gynaecological, vaginal dryness, decline in sexual interest, bone and joint pain, weight gain); however these side effects were reported in both OFS and no-OFS groups. The study that did not use a validated quality of life tool described no considerable differences between groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review found evidence that supports adding OFS for premenopausal women with early, hormone receptor-positive breast cancers. The benefit of OFS persisted when compared to observation, and when added to endocrine therapy (tamoxifen) or chemotherapy and endocrine therapy (tamoxifen). The decision to use OFS may depend on the overall risk assessment based on tumour and patient characteristics, and may follow consideration of all side effects that occur with the addition of OFS.

Locally Advanced Breast Cancer in the Elderly: A Major Challenge Requiring Effective and Appropriate Treatment

Aims and background

Breast cancer is the most common tumor in women. As the population above 65 years increases, breast cancer will be a more substantial problem for elderly patients. This work reports our experience in the management of stage III and IV locally advanced breast cancer.

Methods

Nineteen patients over 65 years of age (mean, 70.3 years) with stage III and IV breast cancers, treated between 1990 and 2000, are considered. The management and outcome are evaluated.

Results

Nine patients had stage IIIA breast cancer, 7 stage IIIB and 3 stage IV. Sixteen underwent Madden mastectomy and 3 simple mastectomy. Patients at stage HIB and 1 patient at stage IV with T4 tumor received neo-adjuvant chemotherapy. There were no significant postoperative complications. Sixteen patients were given tamoxifen and 10 patients adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients were followed for a median of 36.7 months (range, 6–72 months). In 8 patients with stage III disease, metastasis developed. Two patients had local recurrence of disease. Of the patients at stage IIIA, 6 were free from disease (one died from unrelated causes) and 3 had recurrent disease (2 died). Of the patients at stage IIIB, 2 are disease free and 5 had recurrent disease and died. Of the patients at stage IV, only one is alive.

Conclusions

Stage and individual characteristics of elderly women influence management. Patients should be managed adequately since most of them are fit enough to undergo treatment.

Detection of Breast Cancer Cells in the Bone Marrow or Peripheral Blood: Methods and Prognostic Significance

Tumor cells can reach every anatomic district, organ and tissue through the peripheral blood circulation. Tumor cell shedding is considered an early event in the multi-phase process of metastasis, and the possibility of detecting tumor cells in the bloodstream and/or bone marrow before clinical evidence of distant metastases needs to be explored. The use of new sophisticated diagnostic and investigative techniques has boosted the study of tumor cell contamination of bone marrow and peripheral blood. Molecular techniques, such as reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction, may be useful tools to reach this target, but, today, immunocytochemistry is still considered the gold standard to assess new techniques to detect isolated tumor cells in hematopoietic tissue. Little is known about the biology of isolated tumor cells in the peripheral blood or bone marrow. Two crucial points need to be evaluated: the identification of specific markers of breast cancer cells with clonogenic potential and their biologic properties, and the prognostic impact of the detection of isolated tumor cells in the bone marrow or peripheral blood stem cell collections.

Magee Equation 3 predicts pathologic response to neoadjuvant systemic chemotherapy in estrogen receptor positive, HER2 negative/equivocal breast tumors

Magee Equations were derived as an inexpensive, rapid alternative to Oncotype DX. The Magee Equation 3 utilizes immunohistochemical and FISH data for estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), HER2 and Ki-67 for its calculation (24.30812+ERIHC × (-0.02177)+PRIHC × (-0.02884)+(0 for HER2 negative, 1.46495 for equivocal, 12.75525 for HER2 positive)+Ki-67 × 0.18649). We hypothesize that Magee Equation 3 scores from pre-therapy core biopsy can predict response to neoadjuvant systemic chemotherapy. A prospectively-maintained database of patients who received neoadjuvant systemic therapy from 2010 to 2014 at a single institution was retrospectively reviewed. Pathologic complete response was defined as absence of invasive tumor in the breast and regional lymph nodes. Of the 614 cases, tumors with missing immunohistochemical results and those that were ER negative or HER2 positive were excluded. This resulted in 237 ER positive, HER2 negative/equivocal tumors that formed the basis of this study. Magee Equation 3 scores were divided into 3 categories similar to Oncotype DX, ie, 0 to <18 (low), 18 to <31 (intermediate), and 31 or higher (high) scores. The pathologic complete response rate for low, intermediate and high Magee Equation 3 scores was 0%, 4%, and 36%, respectively. Patients with high Magee Equation 3 scores were 13 times more likely to achieve pathologic complete response compared to those with Magee Equation 3 scores less than 31 (95% CI 5.09-32.87, P<0.0001). For patients that did not achieve pathologic complete response, high Magee Equation 3 correlated with higher recurrence rate, with the majority occurring in patients with positive lymph nodes in the resection specimen. Magee Equation 3 score ≥31 predicts pathologic complete response in the neoadjuvant setting and for tumor recurrence, when pathologic complete response is not achieved. These results show the utility of Magee Equation 3 in predicting patients who will benefit from chemotherapy but warrant prospective multi-institutional validation.

Acquired resistance to selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) in clinical practice (tamoxifen & raloxifene) by selection pressure in breast cancer cell populations

Tamoxifen, a pioneering selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM), has long been a therapeutic choice for all stages of estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer. The clinical application of long-term adjuvant antihormone therapy for the breast cancer has significantly improved breast cancer survival. However, acquired resistance to SERM remains a significant challenge in breast cancer treatment. The evolution of acquired resistance to SERMs treatment was primarily discovered using MCF-7 tumors transplanted in athymic mice to mimic years of adjuvant treatment in patients. Acquired resistance to tamoxifen is unique because the growth of resistant tumors is dependent on SERMs. It appears that acquired resistance to SERM is initially able to utilize either E2 or a SERM as the growth stimulus in the SERM-resistant breast tumors. Mechanistic studies reveal that SERMs continuously suppress nuclear ER-target genes even during resistance, whereas they function as agonists to activate multiple membrane-associated molecules to promote cell growth. Laboratory observations in vivo further show that three phases of acquired SERM-resistance exists, depending on the length of SERMs exposure. Tumors with Phase I resistance are stimulated by both SERMs and estrogen. Tumors with Phase II resistance are stimulated by SERMs, but are inhibited by estrogen due to apoptosis. The laboratory models suggest a new treatment strategy, in which limited-duration, low-dose estrogen can be used to purge Phase II-resistant breast cancer cells. This discovery provides an invaluable insight into the evolution of drug resistance to SERMs, and this knowledge is now being used to justify clinical trials of estrogen therapy following long-term antihormone therapy. All of these results suggest that cell populations that have acquired resistance are in constant evolution depending upon selection pressure. The limited availability of growth stimuli in any new environment enhances population plasticity in the trial and error search for survival.

Quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity (Q-TWiST): patient-reported outcome or mathematical model? A systematic review in cancer

OBJECTIVE

Successful cancer treatment is defined as an increase in overall survival and/or progression-free survival. Despite their importance, these metrics omit patient quality of life. Quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity (Q-TWiST) was developed to adjust survival gained, accounting for quality of life. The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the methods reported in cancer literature to determine Q-TWiST values and how these are currently translated to the clinic.

METHODS

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines were used to conduct a systematic review of studies indexed on MEDLINE and Web of Science through April 2013. Cancer studies that measured Q-TWiST either as a primary outcome or retrospectively and determined utility coefficients from a patient population were identified, and their methods reviewed to determine how the utility coefficient was calculated. Additionally, other relevant factors such as definitions of health states and significant findings were collected and summarized.

RESULTS

Out of 284 studies, 11 were identified that calculated patient-defined utility coefficients. Several methods to determine utility coefficients were reported, and multiple definitions of health state toxicity were applied. Of these studies, seven reported significant differences (p < 0.05) in quality-adjusted survival. No studies, however, directly discussed the clinical relevance of their findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Currently, Q-TWiST is utilized as a mathematical theory rather than a clinical tool. Standardization of terminology plus reliability and validity testing of determining both utility coefficients and time frame definitions must be performed before Q-TWiST can become clinically useful to physicians and patients alike for making treatment decisions.

When is contralateral mastectomy warranted in unilateral breast cancer?

Contralateral mastectomy, in the setting of unilateral breast cancer, may only offer a survival benefit in selected patients. In fact, most women with a unilateral breast cancer will never develop a contralateral breast cancer. Despite this, there is a rapidly increasing trend of patients undergoing contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. The Society of Surgical Oncology has provided relative clinical indications for this prophylactic procedure; however, there are other clinical and more important patient factors that are relevant to the decision. In this article, we discuss the indications for this controversial procedure and also explore the patient's motivation to undergo this preventative measure. Nevertheless, the decision to perform a contralateral mastectomy should include a multidisciplinary team approach in conjunction with a patient who has been appropriately informed regarding the risks, benefits and alternatives of this procedure.

Breast cancer stem cells and their role in resistance to endocrine therapy

Developmentally, tumours can be viewed as aberrant versions of normal tissues. For example, tumours often retain differentiation markers of their tissue of origin. In addition, there is evidence that they contain cancer stem-like cells (CSCs) that drive tumourigenesis. In this review, we summarise current evidence that breast CSCs may partially explain endocrine resistance in breast cancer. In normal breast, the stem cells are known to possess a basal phenotype and to be mainly oestrogen receptor-α-negative (ER-). If the hierarchy in breast cancer reflects this, the breast CSC may be endocrine resistant because it expresses very little ER and can only respond to treatment by virtue of paracrine signalling from neighbouring, differentiated ER+ tumour cells. Normal breast epithelial stem cells are regulated by the epidermal growth factor receptor and other growth factor receptor signals. The observed increase in growth factor receptor expression in endocrine-resistant breast cancers may reflect a bigger proportion of CSCs selected by endocrine therapies. There is evidence from a number of studies that breast CSCs are ER- and EGR+/HER2+, which would support this view. It is reported that CSCs express mesenchymal genes, which are suppressed by ER expression, further indicating the mutual exclusion between ER+ cells and the CSCs. As we learn more about CSCs, differentiation and the expression and functional activity of the ER in these cells in diverse breast tumour sub-types, it is hoped that our understanding will lead to new modalities to overcome the problem of endocrine resistance in the clinic.

LHRH agonists for adjuvant therapy of early breast cancer in premenopausal women

BACKGROUND

Approximately 60% of breast cancers amongst premenopausal women express the nuclear oestrogen receptor (ER+ breast cancer). Adjuvant endocrine therapy is an integral component of care for ER+ breast cancer, exerting its effect by reducing the availability of oestrogen to micrometastatic tumour cells. Endocrine strategies in premenopausal women include oestrogen receptor blockade with tamoxifen, temporary suppression of ovarian oestrogen synthesis by luteinising hormone releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists, or permanent interruption of ovarian oestrogen synthesis with oophorectomy or radiotherapy. Aromatase inhibitors are also available with concurrent suppression of ovarian oestrogen synthesis, either through LHRH agonists, surgery, or radiotherapy. Chemotherapy can also have an endocrine action in premenopausal women by interrupting ovarian oestrogen production, either temporarily or permanently. International consensus statements recommend single agent tamoxifen as the current standard adjuvant endocrine therapy for premenopausal women (often preceded by chemotherapy), and the role of LHRH agonists remains under active investigation.

OBJECTIVES

To assess LHRH agonists as adjuvant therapy for women with early breast cancer.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Breast Cancer Group Specialised Register was searched on 19 February 2009. This register incorporates references from CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library) (to 2002), MEDLINE (1966 to July 2008), EMBASE (until 2002); and handsearches of abstracts from the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting, and the Clinical Oncological Society of Australia Annual Meeting. MEDLINE references (from August 2008 to 19th February 2009) were checked by the authors. The reference lists of related reviews were checked. A final check of the list of trials maintained by the Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group was made in January 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised trials assessing LHRH agonists as adjuvant treatment in premenopausal women with early stage breast cancer were included. Specifically, we included trials that compared:(A) LHRH agonists (experimental arm) versus another treatment;(B) LHRH agonists + anti-oestrogen (experimental arm) versus another treatment;(C) LHRH agonists + chemotherapy (experimental arm) versus another treatment;(D) LHRH agonists + anti-oestrogen + chemotherapy (experimental arm) versus another treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were collected from trial reports. We reported estimates for the differences between treatments on recurrence free survival, overall survival, toxicity and quality of life using data available in the reports of each trial. Meta-analyses were not performed because of variability in the reporting of the trials.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 14 randomised trials that involved over 13,000 premenopausal women with operable breast cancer, most of whom were ER+. The numbers of trials making the different comparisons were:(A) i. LHRH versus tamoxifen (three trials),ii. LHRH versus chemotherapy (four trials);(B) i. LHRH + tamoxifen versus tamoxifen (two trials),ii. LHRH + tamoxifen versus LHRH (three trials),iii. LHRH + tamoxifen versus chemotherapy (two trials),iv. LHRH + aromatase inhibitor versus LHRH + tamoxifen (one trial);(C) i. LHRH + chemotherapy versus LHRH (one trial),ii. LHRH + chemotherapy versus chemotherapy (five trials);(D) LHRH + tamoxifen + chemotherapy versus chemotherapy (three trials).The LHRH agonist in most of these trials was goserelin.For most of the treatment comparisons there are too few trials, too few randomised patients, or too little follow up to draw reliable estimates of the relative effects of different treatments.(A) LHRH monotherapy: results suggest that adjuvant LHRH agonist monotherapy is similar to older chemotherapy protocols (eg. CMF) in terms of recurrence-free and overall survival in ER+ patients. There are insufficient data to compare LHRH agonist monotherapy to tamoxifen alone, but available results suggest that these treatments are comparable in terms of recurrence-free survival.(B) LHRH + anti-oestrogen therapy: there are insufficient data to compare the combination of an LHRH agonist plus tamoxifen to tamoxifen alone. Results suggest that the LHRH agonist plus tamoxifen combination may be superior to an LHRH agonist alone or to chemotherapy alone, but the chemotherapy protocols tested are outdated. The data comparing LHRH agonists plus aromatase inhibitors to LHRH agonists plus tamoxifen are currently inconclusive.(C) LHRH + chemotherapy: there are insufficient data to compare the LHRH + chemotherapy combination to an LHRH agonist alone, although results from a single study suggest comparable efficacy in ER+ patients. There is a trend towards improved recurrence-free and overall survival in patients who received an LHRH agonist plus chemotherapy combination in comparison to chemotherapy alone.(D) LHRH agonist + chemotherapy + tamoxifen: there is a trend towards improved recurrence-free and overall survival in patients who received an LHRH agonist plus tamoxifen plus chemotherapy in comparison to chemotherapy alone.There are insufficient data to assess the effect of the addition of LHRH agonists to the current standard treatment of chemotherapy plus tamoxifen.Endocrine therapy with LHRH agonists appears to have fewer side-effects than the forms of chemotherapy assessed. The optimal duration of LHRH therapy in the adjuvant setting is unclear.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the data from currently published clinical trials of LHRH agonists in the adjuvant setting for premenopausal women with endocrine-sensitive breast cancer are supportive of clinical benefit. Nonetheless, definitive comparisons against current clinical standards of care that include third generation chemotherapy regimens and tamoxifen are required before their place in the adjuvant setting can be properly defined. The authors conclude that the current data strongly support the continuation of current trials that definitively compare a variety of combinations of LHRH agonists and anti-oestrogenic strategies to the current standard of five years of tamoxifen.

Resistance to endocrine therapy: are breast cancer stem cells the culprits?

From a developmental point of view, tumors can be seen as aberrant versions of their tissue of origin. For example, tumors often partially retain differentiation markers of their tissue of origin and there is evidence that they contain cancer stem cells (CSCs) that drive tumorigenesis. In this review, we summarise current evidence that breast CSCs may partly explain endocrine resistance in breast cancer. In normal breast, the stem cells are known to possess a basal phenotype and to be mainly ERalpha-. If the hierarchy in breast cancer reflects this, the breast CSC may be endocrine resistant because it expresses very little ERalpha and can only respond to treatment by virtue of paracrine influences of neighboring, differentiated ERalpha+ tumor cells. Normal breast epithelial stem cells are highly dependent on the EGFR and other growth factor receptors and it may be that the observed increased growth factor receptor expression in endocrine-resistant breast cancers reflects an increased proportion of CSCs selected by endocrine therapies. There is evidence from a number of studies that breast CSCs are ERalpha- and EGFR+/HER2+, which would support this view. CSCs also express mesenchymal genes which are suppressed by ERalpha expression, further indicating the mutual exclusion between ERalpha+ cells and the CSCs. As we learn more about CSCs, differentiation and the expression and functional activity of the ERalpha in these cells in diverse breast tumor sub-types, it is hoped that our understanding will lead to new modalities to overcome the problem of endocrine resistance in the clinic.

LHRH agonists for adjuvant therapy of early breast cancer in premenopausal women

BACKGROUND

Approximately 60% of breast cancer tumours in premenopausal women are hormone sensitive (ER+). These patients may be suitable for hormonal treatment. The goal of hormonal therapy is to reduce the availability of oestrogen to the cancer cell. This can be achieved by blocking oestrogen receptors with drugs such as tamoxifen, suppression of oestrogen synthesis by LHRH agonists, or ovarian ablation either surgically or by radiotherapy. Chemotherapy can also have a hormonal action by inducing amenorrhoea in premenopausal women.

OBJECTIVES

To assess LHRH agonists as adjuvant therapy for women with early breast cancer.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The specialised register of the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group was searched on 19 December 2006. The reference lists of related reviews were checked. A final check of the list of trials maintained by the Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group was made in January 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials of LHRH agonist versus LHRH agonist and tamoxifen, LHRH agonist versus chemotherapy, LHRH agonist versus ovarian ablation, or LHRH agonist versus LHRH agonist and chemotherapy, that recruited premenopausal women with early breast cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were collected from trial reports. We report estimates for the differences between treatments on recurrence free survival, overall survival, toxicity and quality of life using data available in the reports of each trial. Meta-analyses were not performed because of variability in the reporting of the trials and the need for more mature data.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 14 randomised trials, involving nearly 12,000 premenopausal women with operable breast cancer, most of whom were ER+. The LHRH agonist in most of these trials was goserelin. For most of the treatment comparisons there are too few trials, too few randomised patients or too little follow-up to draw reliable estimates of the relative effects of different treatments. Four trials (nearly 5000 women) addressed the integration of LHRH agonists into adjuvant hormonal therapy, showing that a combination of an LHRH agonist and tamoxifen might be better than either alone. Insufficient data are available to inform a choice between tamoxifen and goserelin as sole adjuvant therapy. We included twelve trials (more than 10,000 women) of the integration of LHRH agonists into adjuvant chemo-hormonal therapy. Four trials assessed the effects of an LHRH agonist compared to chemotherapy and three other trials investigated a combination of an LHRH agonist and tamoxifen versus chemotherapy. One trial assessed the effects of adding chemotherapy to an LHRH agonist, five trials compared a combination of an LHRH agonist and chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, and three trials compared the combination of LHRH agonist, tamoxifen and chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone. No trials compared an LHRH agonist containing regimen against chemotherapy and tamoxifen. No significant differences in recurrence free survival or overall survival were found between LHRH agonists, with or without adjuvant tamoxifen, and chemotherapy for premenopausal women with ER+ tumours, but hormonal therapy had fewer distressing side effects. The trials point to reductions in recurrence and death for premenopausal women with ER+ tumours who take LHRH agonists, with or without tamoxifen, along with chemotherapy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For premenopausal women with early breast cancer who are not known to be ER negative, the use of an LHRH agonist, with or without tamoxifen as adjuvant therapy is likely to lead to a reduction in the risk of recurrence and a delay in death. The evidence is insufficient to support the LHRH agonists over chemotherapy, or vice versa, in regard to recurrence free survival and overall survival, but LHRH agonists have fewer or less severe adverse effects. Further follow-up of women in these trials is needed to provide reliable evidence on long term outcomes. Direct randomised comparisons of different durations of LHRH agonists (for example, two years versus longer) and, in the presence of uncertainty, of different LHRH agonists among ER+ or ER unknown premenopausal women are also needed. It is also uncertain how the findings from the CMF-based trials in this review would relate to the use of LHRH agonists with more modern chemotherapy regimens or the comparison of LHRH agonist containing regimens with combinations such as chemotherapy and tamoxifen.

Outcome analysis of breast cancer patients receiving breast-conserving surgery in Southern Italy

The purpose of the current analysis was to evaluate the outcome of patients enrolled at the National Cancer Institute of Naples between 1997 and 2000, who underwent breast-conserving surgery. Between January 1997 and December 2000, 946 patients had been diagnosed with T1 or T2 (<3 cm) breast carcinoma. At the time of the present analysis (31-12-2005), all patients had been followed for >5 years. A Cox proportional hazards model was performed. Overall, 7-year Locoregional Relapse-free survival (LRFS) and Distant Relapse-free Survival (DRFS) rates were 95.9% and 88.4%, respectively. Seven-year DRFS was 91.2% and 79.3% in T1 and T2 stage, respectively (p<0.0001). Multivariate Cox analysis indicated that number of positive lymph-nodes and hormone receptor status were significantly associated with prognosis. Our findings confirm that early diagnosed breast cancer, treated with breast-conserving surgery, is associated with a very good prognosis in patients referred to an Institution which may be considered as representative of similar Cancer Institutes of Southern Italy. The risk of local relapse was found to be very low (4%), although a longer follow-up is needed to draw definitive conclusions.

Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy in Premenopausal Patients

Endocrine adjuvant therapy is the best-described molecular targeted treatment and should therefore be used for all patients with endocrine-responsive breast cancer. Ta-moxifen for 5 years is standard of care and has proven efficacy in premenopausal patients. The combination of tamoxifen with ovarian function suppression and/or chemotherapy has been extensively tested, and some controversial approaches are used in clinical practice. Cessation or suppression of ovarian function appears to be beneficial for premenopausal patients. Particularly for premenopausal women with highly endocrine-responsive disease and/or low risk for relapse, the additional benefit of cytotoxic chemotherapy may be minor or nonexistent. While the use aromatase inhibitors is investigated in clinical trials, their application outside an academic trial setting cannot be recommended based on first available results. In contrast, the use of adjuvant bispho-sphonates may offer another strategy of further improving clinical outcomes in this important patient subgroup.

The use of third-generation aromatase inhibitors and tamoxifen in the adjuvant treatment of postmenopausal patients with hormone-dependent breast cancer: evidence based review

(1) Worldwide, breast cancer is the most common type of cancer in women, and the second most frequently diagnosed cancer overall.(2) Since its approval approximately 20 years ago, a 5-year course of tamoxifen has been the standard adjuvant therapy for patients with hormone-dependent breast cancer.(3) Recently, data from large randomised clinical trials have indicated that the third-generation aromatase inhibitors (letrozole, anastrozole and exemestane) are more effective than tamoxifen as adjuvant therapy in postmenopausal women with operable breast cancer when given either initially, or sequentially following initial tamoxifen therapy, within the first five years post-operatively.(4) One large randomised trial demonstrated that administration of letrozole to high-risk (node-positive) postmenopausal patients who have completed 5 years' adjuvant tamoxifen further prevents late recurrences and contralateral breast cancer, contrary to the lack of obvious benefit of extending tamoxifen treatment to 10 years found in another large randomised study.(5) Aromatase inhibitors and tamoxifen should not be administered concomitantly as this does not provide additional benefit, and a large, randomised study demonstrated reduced disease-free survival with the combination of anastrozole plus tamoxifen compared with anastrozole alone.(6) Further studies are required to establish whether the third-generation aromatase inhibitors prolong overall survival compared with tamoxifen, to evaluate their long-term efficacy and tolerability profiles, and to determine the optimal treatment duration with these agents.

Inhibition of histone deacetylase enhances the anti-proliferative action of antiestrogens on breast cancer cells and blocks tamoxifen-induced proliferation of uterine cells

Here we report a novel potential therapeutic strategy using histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors to enhance the action of hormonal therapy agents in estrogen receptor alpha (ER alpha)-positive breast cancer. HDAC inhibitors [trichostatin A (TSA), suberoylanilide hydroxamic acid (SAHA) and valproic acid (VPA)], inhibited proliferation of MCF-7 breast cancer cells and, in combination with tamoxifen inhibited proliferation better than with either agent alone. VPA, an anti-convulsant drug with HDAC inhibitory activity, enhanced tamoxifen action at doses within the concentration range used for anti-convulsive therapy. VPA cooperated with tamoxifen in a variety of ER alpha-positive cell lines and was also effective when combined with other antiestrogens, and with aromatase inhibition. VPA enhanced antiestrogen action by promoting cell death via apoptosis without affecting cell cycling. Some of this action may be due to VPA's ability to induce the pro-apoptotic gene Bik, which is also induced by antiestrogens. Remarkably, VPA blocked the undesirable pro-proliferative action of tamoxifen on uterine endometrial cells. Our in vitro results suggest that VPA and other HDAC inhibitors have the potential to enhance hormonal therapy for ER alpha-positive breast cancer and simultaneously reverse the adverse effects of antiestrogens in the uterus.

Selective Application of Axillary Node Dissection in Elderly Women with Early Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

Routine use of axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) has been questioned in elderly women. This study examines whether selective application of ALND in early stage breast cancer affects breast cancer-related survival.

METHODS

From the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, records of women >or=70 years of age with stage I or II breast cancer diagnosed between 1990 and 1995 were reviewed. Hazard ratios (HR) of cause-specific survival (CSS) between women receiving ALND and those who did not were compared. To minimize the potential for bias in the selection of women to receive ALND, HR of CSS was compared within propensity analysis deciles.

RESULTS

20,151 women entered the analysis. Median follow up was 6 years (interquartile range 4.33-7.67 years). Seventy-five percent underwent ALND. Women with higher risk disease and younger age were more likely to undergo ALND. Five year unadjusted CSS in women who did and did not receive ALND was 92.1% and 90.6%, respectively, with a HR of 0.85, P = 0.002. Using the propensity analysis method, the adjusted HR for CSS associated with ALND was 0.89, P = 0.066.

DISCUSSION

After adjusting for differences in the probability of receiving ALND, no clinically or statistically significant difference in survival was observed among women who received ALND when compared with those who did not, although we could not account for differences in co-morbidity or use of systemic therapy between groups.

CONCLUSION

Surgeons select elderly women with early stage breast cancer for ALND with a negligible impact on CSS.

Targeting the insulin-like growth factor axis as a cancer therapy

The insulin-like growth factor (IGF) axis has been implicated in malignant transformation and in tumor cell biology. Human population studies have demonstrated that high levels of circulating IGF-I are associated with an increased risk of certain malignancies. Many model systems show that IGFs stimulate tumor cell proliferation, survival and metastasis. In a new era of anticancer treatments aimed at tumor-specific targets, efforts are in progress for the development of novel anti-IGF therapies. Disrupting type I IGF-receptor (IGF-IR) function in vitro and in vivo results in tumor growth inhibition in several model systems. Antireceptor therapies in particular have provided encouraging results leading to the approval of the first Phase I human clinical trial targeting IGF-IR. Additional methods to decrease levels of circulating IGF-I and II have also been developed. In principle, a benefit of targeted therapies could be their relative lack of toxicity compared with conventional chemotherapy. Anti-IGF-IR therapies, however, raise theoretical concerns for the development of serious side effects, including diabetes. As targeted therapies against the IGF axis continue to be developed, efforts will need to be made to minimize the side effects that result from blocking normal ligand and receptor-induced functions.

DNA Methylation Profiles of Female Steroid Hormone-Driven Human Malignancies

Tumor DNA contains valuable clues about the origin and pathogenesis of human cancers. Alterations in DNA methylation can lead to silencing of genes associated with distinct tumorigenic pathways. These pathway-specific DNA methylation changes help define tumor-specific DNA methylation profiles that can be used to further our understanding of tumor development, as well as provide tools for molecular diagnosis and early detection of cancer. Female sex hormones have been implicated in the etiology of several of the women's cancers including breast, endometrial, ovarian, and proximal colon cancers. We have reviewed the DNA methylation profiles of these cancers to determine whether the hormonal regulation of these cancers results in specific DNA methylation alterations. Although subsets of tumors in each of these four types of cancers were found to share some DNA methylation alterations, we did not find evidence for global hormone-specific DNA methylation alterations, suggesting that female sex hormones may participate in different tumorigenic pathways that are associated with distinct DNA methylation-based molecular signatures. One such pathway may include MLH1 methylation in the context of the CpG island methylator phenotype.

The effect of imatinib mesylate (Glivec) on human tumor-derived cells

Imatinib mesylate is a specific inhibitor of the Bcr-Abl protein tyrosine kinase that competes with ATP for its specific binding site in the kinase domain. It has activity against platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha and beta (PDGFR-alpha and -beta), and c-kit, the receptor for stem cell factor. We have used a standardized ATP-tumor chemosensitivity assay and immunohistochemistry to determine the cytotoxicity of imatinib mesylate in tumor-derived cells from cutaneous and uveal melanoma, and ovarian carcinoma. Imatinib mesylate was tested at concentrations ranging from 2.0 to 0.0625 micromol/l alone and in combination with a cytotoxic drug (cisplatin, doxorubicin, paclitaxel or treosulfan). Imatinib mesylate showed low inhibition (IndexSUM>300) across the range of concentrations tested in this study, with few tumors exhibiting increasing inhibition with increased drug concentration. The median IC90 values for cutaneous and uveal melanoma and ovarian carcinoma were 13.2 micromol/l (4.0-294.3 micromol/l), 12.0 micromol/l (2.0-285.4 micromol/l) and 7.71 micromol/l (6.51-11.02 micromol/l), respectively. Imatinib mesylate potentiated the effect of different cytotoxics in 9% (5/54) of cases and had a negative effect in 13% (7/54) of cases, with no effect in the remainder. No correlation of effect was noted with c-kit, platelet-derived growth factor receptor-alpha or platelet-derived growth factor receptor-beta expression, assessed by immunohistochemistry. The signaling pathways mediated by activation of c-kit or platelet-derived growth factor receptor may act as antiapoptotic survival signals in some cancers and inhibition of these pathways may potentiate the activity of some cytotoxic drugs by inhibiting the survival signal. Growth inhibition, however, may reduce the efficacy of cytotoxic drugs, which tend to target proliferating cells preferentially, and clinical effects are therefore difficult to predict.

Analyzing oncology clinical trial data using the Q-TWiST method: clinical importance and sources for health state preference data

PURPOSE

The Quality-adjusted Time Without Symptoms of disease and Toxicity (Q-TWiST) analysis method is frequently applied to evaluating outcomes in cancer clinical trials, but there is little information on what constitutes a clinically important difference (CID). We reviewed the Q-TWiST, health-related quality of life (HRQL) and utility measurement literature to develop recommendations for CID for the Q-TWiST. We also provide recommendations for measuring health utilities and for the design of Q-TWiST studies.

METHODS

The English language literature was searched between 1986 and 2003 for Q-TWiST studies in oncology. We estimated the percent differences between treatments based on median follow-up duration for overall, progression-free and quality-adjusted survival. We also reviewed the relevant HRQL and utility literature on clinical importance.

RESULTS

The overall differences between treatments for most (56%) of the observed, published values for Q-TWiST analyses ranged between 12% and 19%. Three-fourths of the Q-TWiST studies had gains in survival of 12%-17%, while differences in progression-free survival ranged from 12% to 26%. Studies that have evaluated the clinical importance of changes in HRQL scores suggest that changes of 5%-10% are clinically meaningful, and other research suggests that 0.5 standard deviation is a reasonable threshold for changes in HRQL for chronic diseases. Similarly, one guideline from the health state utility literature is that a 5%-10% difference in standard gamble utility scores is clinically important. Various sources are available for health utilities for Q-TWiST studies and the most valid are derived from patients or the general public, although most studies rely on sensitivity analyses with no collection of utilities.

CONCLUSIONS

We recommend that the CID for Q-TWiST is 10% of overall survival in a study, and differences of 15% are clearly clinically important. If less is known about a specific treatment and/or disease area, the CID should be greater than 5% but not more than 10% in planning sample size and statistical power. These CID estimates should be interpreted with caution, pending confirmation in future studies by direct patient assessment of the clinically relevant health states for Q-TWiST.

Patient benefits of maintenance immunotherapy

Rituximab maintenance therapy after effective induction has been shown to prolong progression-free and even overall survival, compared with no further treatment until relapse, in randomized, prospective phase III clinical trials in follicular lymphoma. In addition, the use of rituximab maintenance therapy is likely to have an important psychological and emotional impact for many patients. Currently, all patients are expected to relapse eventually following induction treatment: the knowledge that they are being actively treated to delay relapse for as long as possible may provide significant reassurance and emotional support. Similarly, the experience of relapse itself is also likely to be a traumatic event for patients: reducing the frequency of relapse with rituximab maintenance may thus spare patients some of this trauma. Overall, therefore, rituximab maintenance therapy might be expected to improve quality of life for patients with follicular lymphoma over and above the observed clinical benefits in progression-free and overall survival. At present, however, this can only be speculated from observations and experience. Formal quality-of-life and patient preference assessments will be required to demonstrate this conclusively.

When to recommend and to pay for first-line adjuvant breast cancer treatment? A structured review of the literature

A structured review of studies on the health-economic evaluation of systemic adjuvant therapy for early-stage breast cancer was carried out. Of the eight articles that have been identified four were related to the cost-effectiveness of chemotherapy, three compared chemotherapy with combined chemotherapy and hormonal therapy and one compared tamoxifen (TAM) with third-generation aromatase inhibitors (ATIs). Results of the review indicate that the cost-utility of adjuvant breast cancer therapy is within the range of other oncological interventions. Adjuvant chemotherapy is most cost-effective in pre-menopausal women with node-positive breast cancer while cost-effectiveness decreases considerably with increasing age. Endocrine therapy with TAM is most cost-effective in ER-positive tumours with no significant age effect. The cost-utility of using the ATI anastrozole instead of TAM in adjuvant therapy cannot be conclusively assessed on the basis of the existing evidence.

Effect of the Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulator Arzoxifene on Repopulation of Hormone-Responsive Breast Cancer Xenografts between Courses of Chemotherapy

Selective inhibition of repopulation of clonogenic tumor cells between courses of chemotherapy has potential to improve the effectiveness of treatment. Here we study arzoxifene, a short-acting selective estrogen receptor modulator, for its potential to inhibit repopulation in estrogen-dependent human breast cancer MCF-7 xenografts between courses of chemotherapy. Proliferation of tumor cells was evaluated by cyclin D1 expression and uptake of 5-bromo-2'-deoxyuridine. Arzoxifene decreased cell proliferation in xenografts. To model adjuvant treatment of human breast cancer, MCF-7 cells were injected s.c. into nude mice and four groups of mice received the following treatments beginning after implantation: (a) control (vehicle solution); (b) arzoxifene alone, 5 days per week by oral gavage for 3 weeks; (c) 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) or paclitaxel i.p. weekly, for 3 doses; and (d) arzoxifene following each cycle of chemotherapy. The incidence of tumors with volume > or =50 mm(3) was determined as a function of time. MCF-7 xenografts developed in 100% of control mice by 4 weeks after implantation. Paclitaxel or 5-FU alone had minor effects to delay the appearance of xenografts whereas arzoxifene alone caused longer delay. Combined treatment with arzoxifene given between cycles of 5-FU or paclitaxel had substantial effects, with approximately 50% tumor incidence by 5 weeks. Our results indicate that arzoxifene can inhibit repopulation of hormone-responsive MCF-7 breast cancer xenografts when given between courses of chemotherapy. The scheduling of short-acting hormonal agents between courses of adjuvant chemotherapy for human breast cancer has potential to improve the outcome of treatment.

Longitudinal quality of life and quality adjusted survival in a randomised controlled trial comparing six months of bolus fluorouracil/leucovorin vs. twelve weeks of protracted venous infusion fluorouracil as adjuvant chemotherapy for colorectal cancer

Longitudinal quality of life (QOL) assessment is infrequently made in adjuvant therapy for colorectal cancer (CRC). This analysis aims to assess QOL and quality adjusted survival (QAS) in patients receiving adjuvant 5-FU for stage II and III CRC. We performed a multicentre study in which 801 patients were randomised to 6 months of bolus 5-FU/leucovorin (LV n = 404) or 12 weeks of protracted venous infusion (PVI) 5-FU (n = 397). There were significant differences in the deterioration of QOL scores at week 2 with bolus 5-FU/LV compared to PVI 5-FU (P < 0.001), coinciding with toxicity peak during the first cycle. Following week 12, global QOL recovered to baseline when PVI 5-FU was stopped but this was delayed with bolus 5-FU/LV until completion at week 24. QOL scores significantly improved in both arms during follow-up (P < 0.001) and reached a plateau by year 1 without incremental improvement between years 2 and 5. There was a trend towards better QAS with PVI 5-FU. Twelve weeks of adjuvant PVI 5-FU was associated with significantly better QOL during treatment and faster time to recovery compared to 6 months of bolus 5-FU/LV.

The in vitro effect of gefitinib ('Iressa') alone and in combination with cytotoxic chemotherapy on human solid tumours

BACKGROUND

Activation of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) triggers downstream signaling pathways that regulate many cellular processes involved in tumour survival and growth. Gefitinib ('Iressa') is an orally active tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) targeted to the ATP-binding domain of EGFR (HER1; erbB1).

METHODS

In this study we have used a standardised ATP-based tumour chemosensitivity assay (ATP-TCA) to measure the activity of gefitinib alone or in combination with different cytotoxic drugs (cisplatin, gemcitabine, oxaliplatin and treosulfan) against a variety of solid tumours (n = 86), including breast, colorectal, oesophageal and ovarian cancer, carcinoma of unknown primary site, cutaneous and uveal melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and sarcoma. The IC50 and IC90 were calculated for each single agent or combination. To allow comparison between samples the IndexSUM was calculated based on the percentage tumour growth inhibition (TGI) at each test drug concentration (TDC). Gefitinib was tested at concentrations ranging from 0.0625-2 microM (TDC = 0.446 microg/ml). This study represents the first use of a TKI in the assay.

RESULTS

There was heterogeneity in the degree of TGI observed when tumours were tested against single agent gefitinib. 7% (6/86) of tumours exhibited considerable inhibition, but most showed a more modest response resulting in a low TGI. The median IC50 value for single agent gefitinib in all tumours tested was 3.98 microM. Interestingly, gefitinib had both positive and negative effects when used in combination with different cytotoxics. In 59% (45/76) of tumours tested, the addition of gefitinib appeared to potentiate the effect of the cytotoxic agent or combination (of these, 11% (5/45) had a >50% decrease in their IndexSUM). In 38% of tumours (29/76), the TGI was decreased when the combination of gefitinib + cytotoxic was used in comparison to the cytotoxic alone. In the remaining 3% (2/76) there was no change observed.

CONCLUSION

The in vitro model suggests that gefitinib may have differential effects in response to concomitant cytotoxic chemotherapy with the agents tested during this study. The mechanism involved may relate to the effect of TKIs on growth rate versus their effect on the ability of the cell to survive the stimulus to apoptosis produced by chemotherapy.

Quality-adjusted survival analysis shows differences in outcome after immunosuppression or bone marrow transplantation in aplastic anemia

Bone marrow transplantation (BMT) and immunosuppression (IS) have improved the prognosis of aplastic anemia; both treatments have specific advantages and drawbacks but similar survival rates. Analysis of additional endpoints may help in treatment decisions. In a single-center study, patients with aplastic anemia treated with IS (n=155) or BMT (n=52) were compared for survival, event-free survival, and quality-adjusted time without symptoms and toxicity (Q-TWiST). Probability of overall and event-free survival at 15 years was similar among both groups (BMT 51+/-15% and 25+/-14%, IS 53+/-10% and 27+/-8%), with more early deaths in the transplant group and more late deaths in the IS group. There were differences in terms of mean duration of seven analyzed health states: time with symptoms from treatment-related toxicity (IS 0.36 years, BMT 0.27), transfusion dependency (IS 0.66 years, BMT 0.1 years), partial remission (IS 3.27 years, BMT 1.42), and secondary clonal disorder (IS 0.68 years, BMT 0.04) was significantly longer for IS compared to BMT (p< or =0.001). Patients treated with BMT spent more time with extensive chronic graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) (IS 0 years, BMT 0.96, p<0.023) and in CR without drugs (IS 1.22 years, BMT 2.43, p=0.056). In conclusion, survival, event-free survival, and Q-TWiST are similar. BMT-treated patients had longer periods free from symptoms, while IS-treated patients needed closer medical care, transfusion support, and medications.

Time without symptoms and toxicity (TWIST) analysis of adjuvant radiation therapy for endometrial cancer

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Postoperative radiotherapy in endometrial cancer reduces the risk of local relapse but is also associated with substantial acute and late reactions. The aim of our study was to evaluate time without tumor symptoms and toxicity (TWIST) in a consecutive series of 317 endometrial cancer patients administered postoperative irradiation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Both low-dose rate brachytherapy (BRT) and external beam irradiation (EBRT) were applied in 247 patients (78%), only BRT--in 49 (15%) and only EBRT--in 21 patients (7%). Median follow-up was 7.3 years (range, 4-21 years). TWIST analysis based on actuarial freedom from recurrent disease and from late radiotherapy effects was performed with the use of Kaplan-Meier method. The impact of patient- and treatment-related factors on TWIST was assessed with uni- and multivariate tests.

RESULTS

Five-year overall survival was 78%, and five-year disease free survival--75%. Recurrence occurred in 70 patients (22%), of whom in 11 (3.5%)--exclusively in the pelvis. Acute and late reactions of any grade occurred in 268 (85%) and 158 patients (51%), respectively. Late bowel effects of any grade were observed in 41% of patients. Severe late effects occurred in 35 patients (11%). Actuarial probability of two- and five-year survival free of disease and severe (grades 3 or 4) late effects (TWIST) was 84% and 71%, respectively (median TWIST, 16.2 years). When all-grade late effects were considered, two- and five-year TWIST probability was 50 and 30%, respectively, and median TWIST was only 2.0 years. When both acute and late reactions were taken into account, median TWIST was 22 months. In unifactorial test, higher age ( P = 0.013) FIGO stage ( P < 0.001) total radiotherapy dose ( P < 0.001) normalized total dose based on linear-quadratic model ( P = 0.001) EBRT fraction dose ( P < 0.001) and use of cesium BRT ( P = 0.042) were correlated with shorter TWIST. In multifactorial analysis, higher age ( P = 0.001) FIGO stage ( P = 0.001) and total radiotherapy dose ( P < 0.001) were independent factors correlated with shorter TWIST.

CONCLUSIONS

Endometrial cancer patients treated with postoperative irradiation have a long time interval without relapse and severe late toxicity. However, when any late normal tissue injury is considered, the median time without relapse and late toxicity is significantly shorter. The impact of mild late radiotherapy complications on the quality of life should be further investigated. TWIST calculation should be attempted in future prospective studies evaluating the role of postoperative radiotherapy.

Quality-of-life-adjusted survival comparison of sustained-release cytosine arabinoside versus intrathecal methotrexate for treatment of solid tumor neoplastic meningitis

BACKGROUND

The authors compared the quality of life of patients with solid tumor neoplastic meningitis treated in a controlled trial that compared conventional intrathecal methotrexate with a depot cytosine arabinoside liposomal injection (DepoCyt). The authors evaluated the trade-off between toxicity and improved clinical outcome.

METHODS

Quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity (Q-TWiST) analysis was used to evaluate data collected prospectively from a randomized clinical trial that compared DepoCyt with methotrexate. Sixty-one patients with confirmed solid tumor neoplastic meningitis were randomized to receive either methotrexate or DepoCyt.

RESULTS

Within the 12-month follow-up, the average patient in the DepoCyt arm (compared with the methotrexate arm) achieved 71 more days of neurologic progression-free survival and 52 more days of overall survival, but experienced slightly more days with toxicity. The DepoCyt regimen provided greater quality-adjusted survival regardless of the quality-of-life valuations placed on time with toxicity and time following disease progression (range, 44-79 days). This gain was significant (P < 0.05) for all patients except for those who placed a high relative value on time following disease progression.

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical benefits of DepoCyt offset a trend toward additional toxicity among patients with sold tumor neoplastic meningitis. The magnitude of the benefit depends on how the patient values time spent in toxicity and disease progression. The results of this analysis can be used at the bedside to make evidence-based individual treatment decisions.

Continuing chemotherapy or not after the induction treatment in advanced breast cancer patients. clinical outcomes and oncologists' preferences

The optimal duration of cytostatic treatment for metastatic breast cancer is still a matter of debate. Possible gain in the duration of remission has to be weighed against the side-effects of treatment. Our aim was to define the optimal duration of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil (CMF) treatment by studying the time to treatment failure, overall survival and using a Q-TWiST analysis. The treating physician's opinion was asked. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Breast Cancer Group conducted a randomised trial in 204 non-progressing metastatic breast cancer patients after induction chemotherapy (CMF) to stop or continue treatment. Progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were studied. To gain more insight into the burden of treatment-related side-effects, Q-TWiST was analysed. In addition, we asked for oncologists' preferences as patients are likely to be influenced by their physicians' opinion. Continuation of CMF had a significantly longer time to treatment failure (TTF) 5.2 versus 3.5 months (P=0.011). There was no overall survival (OS) difference 14.0 versus 14.4 months (P=0.77). Mean quality-adjusted survival time was equal to 8.4 months for no further treatment and decreased to 7.9 months for continuation of CMF (95% Confidence Interval (CI) of difference equals 0.5+/-2.5 months). Almost half of the oncologists said they would favour continuous treatment for a 3-month gain in time to progression-a difference which was not found in this study. Based on these data, an interruption of chemotherapy (CMF), if this is the wish of the patient, is justified.

A novel aspartic protease gene, ALP56, is up-regulated in human breast cancer independently from the cathepsin D gene

Tumor cell invasion requires expression of degradative enzymes such as plasminogen activator, collagenase, and cathepsins. Cathepsin D, a lysosomal aspartic protease produced constitutively in human breast cancer cell lines, also has mitogenic activity in breast cancer cells. Additionally, high cathepsin D expression is associated with increased risk of metastasis in patients with node-negative breast cancer. Recently, a novel aspartic protease gene, ALP56 (aspartic-like protease 56kDa), has been identified. To examine possible interrelationships we quantitated ALP56 mRNA and cathepsin D mRNA in breast cancers using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction. ALP56 mRNA expression was greater in cancers than in noncancerous tissues (p < 0.0001), as was expression of cathepsin D mRNA. ALP56 gene expression was dose-dependently down-regulated in T-47D breast cancer cells treated with estradiol, while cathepsin D was up-regulated. Expression of ALP56 mRNA in estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancers was less than that in ER-negative cancers, and mRNA expression for ALP56 and cathepsin D did not correlate with one another. Thus ALP56 as well as cathepsin D may be a useful target molecule in breast cancer treatment.

Oestrogen exposure and breast cancer risk

Epidemiological and experimental evidence implicates oestrogens in the aetiology of breast cancer. Most established risk factors for breast cancer in humans probably act through hormone-related pathways, and increased concentrations of circulating oestrogens have been found to be strongly associated with increased risk for breast cancer in postmenopausal women. This article explores the evidence for the hypothesis that oestrogen exposure is a major determinant of risk for breast cancer. We review recent data on oestrogens and breast cancer risk, consider oestrogen-related risk factors and examine possible mechanisms that might account for the effects of oestrogen. Finally, we discuss how these advances might influence strategies for reducing the incidence of breast cancer.

Who should not receive chemotherapy? Data from American databases and trials

The demonstration of the effectiveness of chemotherapy in both premenopausal and postmenopausal women, regardless of estrogen receptor (ER) status, raises the question of whether all breast cancer patients should receive chemotherapy. Several patient groups with such a favorable long-term prognosis that they will obtain an extremely small benefit from chemotherapy can be identified. They include patients with lymph node-negative tumors of 1 cm or less in size, those with grade 1 tumors between 1.1 and 2.0 cm in size, and those with tumors of favorable histologic type (tubular and mucinous) up to 3 cm in size. A patient subgroup in which it is not clear that the benefits of chemotherapy routinely exceed the risks is postmenopausal women with ER-positive, lymph node-negative cancers receiving tamoxifen. There is a wide variation in prognosis in this group, and chemotherapy should be reserved for those at high risk of recurrence. Finally, no benefit for chemotherapy in women aged 70 years and older has been identified. The high rate of death from causes other than breast cancer may negate small survival benefits, and after adjustment for quality of life, the duration of treatment exceeds the gain in life expectancy.

Decision-making in early breast cancer: guidelines and decision tools

The meta-analysis of trials of adjuvant systemic therapy for early breast cancer provides robust information on the impact of both cytotoxic chemotherapy and tamoxifen on relapse-free and overall survival to 15 years from diagnosis. These data are described in terms of relative risk reduction and are not meant to be viewed as a prescription for therapy. To translate relative risk reductions into absolute benefits for the individual patient and then trade off the gains against the long-term and short-term side-effects and toxicities is a highly complex process for the clinician, and current guidelines are formatted in such a way that they fail to use current information in a way that allows a quantitative assessment of the benefits and risks of adjuvant therapy. This review article explores current guidelines and describes some aids that may be used to help inform women about their treatment options for early breast cancer.

A longitudinal study of health related quality of life and utility measures in patients with advanced breast cancer

Health related quality of life (HRQOL) measures are now accepted as indicators of efficacy in the palliative treatment of cancer. Utility measures may also provide valuable information yet they have been applied less frequently. To assess the application of a time trade-off (TTO) utility measure and its concordance with the Spitzer uniscale and quality of life index (QLI) 38 women with advanced, symptomatic breast cancer were studied over a 12 month period. The correlation coefficient for QLI and TTO values was 0.54 and for uniscale and TTO 0.62. Using generalized estimating equations the regression of TTO scores on QLI and uniscale scores was significant at baseline. In longitudinal analyses results were significant only for QLI. Although all participants completed the HRQOL measures only 24 (63%) were prepared to trade time. The remaining 14 (32%) stated they felt too well to trade. Those prepared to trade time recorded significantly worse mean HRQOL scores throughout the study compared to those who felt too well to trade and had tumors which showed a poorer response to therapy. In this preliminary study utility and HRQOL scores were generally favorable throughout the 12 month study period and showed fair to moderate concordance. Further research in larger patient groups is required to better define the relationships between utility and HRQOL measures.

Neoadjuvant tamoxifen for hormone-sensitive non-metastatic breast carcinomas in early postmenopausal women

BACKGROUND

From 1984 to 1996, 1581 postmenopausal women aged 50-70 years old were treated at Institut Bergonié for an infiltrative non-metastatic breast carcinoma with a positive estrogen and/or progesterone receptor determination.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Among them, 199 were treated with first line tamoxifen. Ninety-seven had operable disease (T2 >30 mm, T3, N0/1) and 102 had T4 tumours.

RESULTS

After a mean treatment duration of 5.3 months, 89 T2 and T3 (92%) and 93 T4 (91%) were treated by surgery (conservative or not) with or without irradiation, or by irradiation alone. Conserving treatment levels were 53.6% and 44%, respectively. The other women were treated with either second-line chemotherapy or another hormonotherapy; the remaining patients continued regularly with tamoxifen. Overall survival is analysed with a 83 month median follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

A comparison between neoadjuvant endocrine therapy and surgery seems feasible to assess the concept of neoadjuvant hormonotherapy.

Do estrogens always increase breast cancer risk?

The etiology of breast cancer is closely linked to the female hormone estrogen, with high life-time exposure being suggested to increase breast cancer risk [Nature 303 (1983) 767]. However, there appears to be a disparity between studies attempting to establish an association between high estrogen levels and breast cancer risk. This disparity becomes smaller by taking into consideration a timing factor, and we propose that estrogens can increase, decrease, or have no effect on breast cancer risk, depending on the timing of estrogen exposure. We further propose that the timing of estrogenic exposures may play at least as important a role in affecting breast cancer risk as life-time exposure.

Polychemotherapy for early breast cancer: an overview of the randomised clinical trials with quality-adjusted survival analysis

BACKGROUND

Overview analysis involving 18000 women with breast cancer in 47 randomised trials showed that prolonged chemotherapy significantly reduces the risk of relapse and death compared with no chemotherapy. Here we express the size of the benefit in terms of quality-adjusted survival time gained.

METHODS

We used the Q-TWiST method (Quality-adjusted Time Without Symptoms of disease and Toxicity of treatment) to provide treatment comparisons within 10 years' follow-up, incorporating differences in quality of life associated with times patients spend with chemotherapy toxic effects, after relapse, and without symptoms of relapse or toxicity.

FINDINGS

Within 10 years' follow-up the benefit of increased relapse-free and overall survival for younger women (<50 years old) who received polychemotherapy balanced the burdens in terms of acute toxic side-effects, especially among women enrolled in trials that did not include tamoxifen. Overall, chemotherapy-treated younger women gained an average of 10.3 months of relapse-free survival and 5.4 months of overall survival within 10 years (p<0.0001 for both) compared with the no-chemotherapy group. Polychemotherapy provided more quality-adjusted time than control across nearly all values of utility weights for time spent undergoing chemotherapy and time after relapse. The range of benefit was from -0.6 to 10.3 months. For older women (50-69 years) overall, polychemotherapy also provided significant benefit compared with no chemotherapy but, compared with younger women, the size of benefit was less and the range of utility-weight values favouring polychemotherapy was smaller. Average gains for older women treated with polychemotherapy (with or without tamoxifen) were 6.8 months of relapse-free survival (p<0.0001) and 2.9 months of overall survival (p=0.0001) within 10 years. The range of quality-adjusted benefit was -3.1 to 6.8 months. For older women with oestrogen-receptor-poor tumours who did not receive tamoxifen (9% of the total), the benefit of polychemotherapy was significant and similar to that observed for younger women.

INTERPRETATION

The benefits of adjuvant chemotherapy within 10 years outweigh the burdens especially for younger women (<50 years old) and among older women (50-69 years) to a lesser degree. Additional studies to compare the quality-adjusted survival of chemotherapy plus endocrine therapy versus endocrine therapy alone are required for younger patients with tumours that express steroid-hormone receptors.

Breast cancer surgery--historical evolution, current status and future perspectives

The diagnosis and management of breast cancer have changed dramatically over the past two decades in response not only to new technologies but also to cultural and social aspects of the discase. Mastectomy (either radical or modified radical) was the historical mainstay of the treatment of breast cancer for decades. Although mastectomy continues to be appropriate for some patients, breast conservation has become the preferred method of treatment for many patients. Meeting the dual goal of optimum cosmesis and minimal rates of in-breast recurrences after breast-conservation therapy requires the selection and integration of appropriate diagnostic methods (including breast imaging techniques and breast biopsy techniques) its well as therapeutic methods (breast irradiation techniques, and systemic cytotoxic and hormonal therapy). To achieve optimal breast-conservation treatment, a multidisciplinary approach is neccessary. Mastectomy followed by breast reconstruction is a valuable alternative for patients who require or choose mastectomy. After tumor downstaging with induction chemotherapy, a large percentage of patients with large or locally advanced tumors will be able to undergo breast-conservation therapy Partial (levels I and II) axillary lymph node dissection remains the standard of care in the surgical management of patients with invasive breast cancer. Recently there has been intense interest in selective axillary lymph node dissection, focused mainly on the identification of patients who are likely to benefit from axillary lymph node dissection, using sentinel lymph node biopsy.

Cost-Effectiveness of interferon alfa-2b added to chemotherapy for high-tumor-burden follicular non-Hodgkin's lymphoma

Recent data from GELF (Groupe d'Etude des Lymphomes Folliculaires) have shown that the addition of interferon alfa-2b (IFN) to a doxorubicin-containing regimen (CHVP: cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, teniposide and prednisone) prolongs both progression-free survival and overall survival in high-tumor-burden follicular non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. This gain must be weighed against the incremental toxicity and cost of IFN over CHVP alone and the objective here was, to determine the marginal cost-effectiveness of additive IFN in the specific setting of high-tumor-burden follicular non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Meta-analysis of GELF trial results employing a Markov model was used with three health states: No Progression, Progressive Disease, and Death. Treatment response, survival and toxicity data are drawn from the GELF study. The current study is based on the final analysis of 242 patients (J Clin Oncol 1998;16:2332-2338), with a six year median follow-up for overall survival (median overall survival: not reached for CHVP + IFN vs 5.6 years for CHVP Only, p = 0.008).

MEASUREMENTS

Quality of life data (utilities) are taken from studies with similar dosing of IFN, from Q-TwiST (quality adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity) analysis of the GELF data and from a panel of experts gathered to develop treatment models for high-tumor-burden follicular non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Costs and quality-adjusted years of life saved were discounted at 3% per annum.

SETTING

Costs determined for university medical centers in the United States. Results showed that, at the median cohort age of 52, IFN add 9.9 quality-adjusted months at an added cost of $13,900 (marginal cost-effectiveness of $16,900 per quality-adjusted life year, or QALY). A more complex, two-stage model approximates the actual cohort survival curves much better than a simple, one-stage model, but both models yield essentially the same marginal cost-effectiveness. Sensitivity analysis to quality of life on IFN shows marginal cost-effectiveness ranging from $15,200/QALY (no penalty for IFN) to $21,300/QALY (20% quality adjustment, greater than that reported). The model is quite insensitive to the probability of IFN toxicity. The model is moderately sensitive to the efficacy of IFN in delaying progression, particularly in the first 18 months (pProgI), but the marginal cost-effectiveness does not rise to $50,000/QALY until pProgI increases 220% from the baseline. Although the model is moderately sensitive to the cost of IFN (cIFN), marginal cost-effectiveness is below $50,000/QALY for values of cIFN below $2580/month (baseline cIFN = $850/month, corresponding to a marginal cost-effectiveness of $16,900/QALY in the baseline case). If the model is modified to reflect the 14% overall survival advantage at five years found in trials utilizing more intensive initial chemotherapy (including the GELF trial), then the marginal cost-effectiveness drops to $11,900/QALY in the baseline case. In condusion, based on data from the GELF study, low-dose interferon alfa-2b is cost-effective when added to CHVP therapy in the treatment of high-tumor-burden follicular non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The analysis is robust: the model employs very conservative assumptions, and additive IFN remains cost-effective over wide ranges of variables in sensitivity analyses. The marginal cost-effectiveness is best expressed as being in the range of $12,000/QALY to $17,000/QALY in the baseline case. A simple Markov model can be used to describe treatment regimens with distinct periods of therapy.

Patient preference for cancer therapy: an overview of measurement approaches

PURPOSE

In the era of evidence-based medicine and shared decision making, the formal assessment of patient preference for treatments or treatment outcomes has attracted much attention. In this article, the two most common approaches to the evaluation of preference, ie, utility assessment and probability trade-off assessment, are described. The purpose is to provide clinicians with the background knowledge needed to interpret preference studies published in the literature and to judge whether the reported findings are relevant to their own patients.

METHODS

An overview is given of the methods used to assess utilities and probability trade-off scores. Evidence on determinants of such scores is presented. Examples from oncology are provided. Because experience with the treatment plays an important role as a determinant of preferences for both treatments and treatment outcomes, special attention is paid to the interpretation of studies in the light of subject selection. Directions for future research are suggested.

CONCLUSION

The choice of approach and the measuring instrument depend on the goal of the preference assessment. Normal psychologic processes, such as coping, adaptation, and cognitive dissonance reduction, cause patients who are about to undergo a therapy or have experienced a therapy to rate it more favorably than other patients do. This should be remembered when using evidence from the literature to inform patients or for patient decision making.