1
|
Fisher B, Bryant J, Wolmark N, Mamounas E, Brown A, Fisher ER, Wickerham DL, Begovic M, DeCillis A, Robidoux A, Margolese RG, Cruz AB, Hoehn JL, Lees AW, Dimitrov NV, Bear HD. Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on the outcome of women with operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2023; 41:1795-1808. [PMID: 36989610 DOI: 10.1200/jco.22.02571] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/31/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To determine, in women with primary operable breast cancer, if preoperative doxorubicin (Adriamycin) and cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan; AC) therapy yields a better outcome than postoperative AC therapy, if a relationship exists between outcome and tumor response to preoperative chemotherapy, and if such therapy results in the performance of more lumpectomies. PATIENTS AND METHODS Women (1,523) enrolled onto National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) B-18 were randomly assigned to preoperative or postoperative AC therapy. Clinical tumor response to preoperative therapy was graded as complete (cCR), partial (cPR), or no response (cNR). Tumors with a cCR were further categorized as either pathologic complete response (pCR) or invasive cells (pINV). Disease-free survival (DFS), distant disease-free survival (DDFS), and survival were estimated through 5 years and compared between treatment groups. In the preoperative arm, proportional-hazards models were used to investigate the relationship between outcome and tumor response. RESULTS There was no significant difference in DFS, DDFS, or survival (P = .99, .70, and .83, respectively) among patients in either group. More patients treated preoperatively than postoperatively underwent lumpectomy and radiation therapy (67.8% v 59.8%, respectively). Rates of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) after lumpectomy were similar in both groups (7.9% and 5.8%, respectively; P = .23). Outcome was better in women whose tumors showed a pCR than in those with a pINV, cPR, or cNR (relapse-free survival [RFS] rates, 85.7%, 76.9%, 68.1%, and 63.9%, respectively; P < .0001), even when baseline prognostic variables were controlled. When prognostic models were compared for each treatment group, the preoperative model, which included breast tumor response as a variable, discriminated outcome among patients to about the same degree as the postoperative model. CONCLUSION Preoperative chemotherapy is as effective as postoperative chemotherapy, permits more lumpectomies, is appropriate for the treatment of certain patients with stages I and II disease, and can be used to study breast cancer biology. Tumor response to preoperative chemotherapy correlates with outcome and could be a surrogate for evaluating the effect of chemotherapy on micrometastases; however, knowledge of such a response provided little prognostic information beyond that which resulted from postoperative therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- B Fisher
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Operations and Biostatistical Centers, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
| | - J Bryant
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Operations and Biostatistical Centers, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
| | - N Wolmark
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Operations and Biostatistical Centers, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
| | - E Mamounas
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Operations and Biostatistical Centers, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
| | - A Brown
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Operations and Biostatistical Centers, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
| | - E R Fisher
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Operations and Biostatistical Centers, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
| | - D L Wickerham
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Operations and Biostatistical Centers, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
| | - M Begovic
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Operations and Biostatistical Centers, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
| | - A DeCillis
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Operations and Biostatistical Centers, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
| | - A Robidoux
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Operations and Biostatistical Centers, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
| | - R G Margolese
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Operations and Biostatistical Centers, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
| | - A B Cruz
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Operations and Biostatistical Centers, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
| | - J L Hoehn
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Operations and Biostatistical Centers, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
| | - A W Lees
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Operations and Biostatistical Centers, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
| | - N V Dimitrov
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Operations and Biostatistical Centers, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
| | - H D Bear
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Operations and Biostatistical Centers, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Ganz PA, Bandos H, Geyer CE, Robidoux A, Paterson AH, Polikoff J, Baez-Diaz L, Brufsky AM, Fehrenbacher L, Parsons AW, Ward PJ, Provencher L, Hamm JT, Stella PJ, Carolla RL, Margolese RG, Shibata HR, Perez EA, Wolmark N. Behavioral and health outcomes from the NRG Oncology/NSABP B-36 trial comparing two different adjuvant therapy regimens for early-stage node-negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2022; 192:153-161. [PMID: 35112166 PMCID: PMC8979645 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-021-06475-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/13/2021] [Accepted: 12/02/2021] [Indexed: 02/05/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The NSABP B-36 compared four cycles of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) with six cycles of 5-fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FEC-100) in node-negative early-stage breast cancer. A sub-study within B-36, focusing on symptoms, quality of life (QOL), menstrual history (MH), and cardiac function (CF) was conducted. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients completed the QOL questionnaire at baseline, during treatment, and every 6 months through 36 months. FACT-B Trial Outcome Index (TOI), symptom severity, and SF-36 Vitality and Physical Functioning (PF) scales scores were compared between the two groups using a mixed model for repeated measures analysis. MH was collected at baseline and subsequently assessed if menstrual bleeding occurred within 12 months prior to randomization. Post-chemotherapy amenorrhea outcome was examined at 18 months and was defined as lack of menses in the preceding year. Logistic regression was used to test for association of amenorrhea and treatment. CF assessment was done at baseline and 12 months. Correlation analysis was used to address associations between changes in baseline and 12-month PF and concurrent CF changes measured by LVEF. RESULTS FEC-100 patients had statistically significantly lower TOI scores during chemotherapy (P = 0.02) and at 6 months (P < 0.001); lower Vitality score at 6 months (P < 0.01), and lower PF score during the first year than AC patients. There were no statistically significant QOL score differences between the two groups beyond 12 months. No significant differences in symptom severity between the two groups were observed. Rates of amenorrhea were significantly different between FEC-100 and AC (67.4% vs. 59.1%, P < 0.001). There was no association between changes in LVEF and PF (P = 0.38). CONCLUSIONS Statistically significant QOL differences between the two groups favored AC; however, the magnitude was small and unlikely to be clinically meaningful. There was a clinical and statistically significant difference in risk for amenorrhea, favoring AC. TRIAL REGISTRY NCT00087178; Date of registration: 07/08/2004.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Patricia A. Ganz
- NSABP/NRG Oncology, Pittsburgh, PA,Department of Health Policy and Management, UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, University of California at Los Angeles, Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Hanna Bandos
- NSABP/NRG Oncology, Pittsburgh, PA,Department of Biostatistics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA
| | - Charles E. Geyer
- NSABP/NRG Oncology, Pittsburgh, PA,Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Houston Methodist Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - André Robidoux
- NSABP/NRG Oncology, Pittsburgh, PA,Department of Surgery, Breast Cancer Research Group (GRCS), Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal (CHUM), Montréal, PQ, Canada
| | - Alexander H.G. Paterson
- NSABP/NRG Oncology, Pittsburgh, PA,Department of Oncology, Tom Baker Cancer Centre, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada
| | - Jonathan Polikoff
- NSABP/NRG Oncology, Pittsburgh, PA,Department of Research and Evaluation – Clinical Trials – Oncology, Kaiser Permanente - San Diego Mission, CA
| | - Luis Baez-Diaz
- NSABP/NRG Oncology, Pittsburgh, PA,Department of Cancer Medicine, Puerto Rico NCORP/UPR Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Juan, Puerto Rico
| | - Adam M. Brufsky
- NSABP/NRG Oncology, Pittsburgh, PA,UPMC Hillman Cancer Center, Pittsburgh, PA
| | - Louis Fehrenbacher
- NSABP/NRG Oncology, Pittsburgh, PA,Department of Oncology, Kaiser Permanente, Northern CA Region, Vallejo, CA
| | - Ann W Parsons
- NSABP/NRG Oncology, Pittsburgh, PA,Department of Presbyterian Oncology, MBCCOP, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM
| | - Patrick J. Ward
- NSABP/NRG Oncology, Pittsburgh, PA,Department of Medical Oncology, Oncology/Hematology Care Clinical Trials, Cincinnati, OH
| | - Louise Provencher
- NSABP/NRG Oncology, Pittsburgh, PA,Centre des Maladies du Sein Deschenes-Fabia, CHU de Québec/Université Laval, Québec City, PQ, Canada
| | - John T. Hamm
- NSABP/NRG Oncology, Pittsburgh, PA,Department of Medical Oncology, Norton Cancer Institute, a part of Norton Healthcare, Louisville, KY
| | - Philip J. Stella
- NSABP/NRG Oncology, Pittsburgh, PA,Department of Medical Oncology, St Joseph Mercy Hospital, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Robert L. Carolla
- NSABP/NRG Oncology, Pittsburgh, PA,CCOP, Ozark Health Ventures LLC-Cancer Research for the Ozarks, Springfield, MO
| | - Richard G. Margolese
- NSABP/NRG Oncology, Pittsburgh, PA,Department of Oncology, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, PQ, Canada
| | - Henry R. Shibata
- NSABP/NRG Oncology, Pittsburgh, PA,Department of Surgery, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, PQ, Canada
| | - Edith A. Perez
- NSABP/NRG Oncology, Pittsburgh, PA,Department of Hematology/Oncology and Cancer Biology, Mayo Clinic Jacksonville, Jacksonville, FL,NCCTG/ALLIANCE, Rochester, MN
| | - Norman Wolmark
- NSABP/NRG Oncology, Pittsburgh, PA,UPMC Hillman Cancer Center, Pittsburgh, PA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Margolese RG. Technique of Segmental Mastectomy: The National Surgical Adjuvant Breast Project (NSABP) Experience. Breast Cancer 2021. [DOI: 10.1201/9781003210542-12] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
|
4
|
Margolese RG. Management of Primary Breast Cancer: A Biologic and Therapeutic Review. Breast Cancer 2021. [DOI: 10.1201/9781003210542-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
|
5
|
Wong SM, Boileau JF, Rana M, Muanza T, Margolese RG, Monette J, Bahoric B, Basik M. Breast cancer in women aged 80 years and older: Clinical characteristics and treatment patterns according to biologic subtype. J Clin Oncol 2020. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2020.38.15_suppl.e12594] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
e12594 Background: Older age is associated with poorer breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) outcomes, despite a higher prevalence of biologically favorable disease. We sought to evaluate differences in the clinical characteristics and management of older women according to biologic subtype of breast cancer. Methods: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) treatment database was queried to identify all women aged 80 years or older with a first diagnosis of invasive breast cancer between 2010 and 2016. Patients were subgrouped according to biologic subtype and clinical and treatment-related variables were compared. Multivariable logistic regression was then performed to determine factors independently associated with receipt of breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and adjuvant radiation. Results: Overall, 27,375 women with a median age of 84 (range, 80-108 years) met inclusion criteria. The majority of older women were diagnosed with HR+HER2- breast cancer (78.9%), followed by HER2+ (11.0%) and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) (10.0%). In women with stage I-III disease, non-operative management was employed in 13.4% of HR+HER2- patients, compared to 16.7% of HER2+ patients and 11.0% of TNBC (p < 0.001). In those undergoing surgery, BCS was most common in HR+HER2- patients (80.9%), compared to HER2+ (68.9%) and TNBC (67.8%; p < 0.001). Axillary surgery was performed in 74.0% of early stage patients with HR+HER2- disease, compared to patients with HER2+ (77.8%) and TNBC (79.3%; p < 0.001). In adjusted analyses controlling for stage and clinical variables, women aged 80 years or older with HER2+ breast cancer and TNBC had a lower likelihood of BCS (ORHER2+ 0.72, 95% CI 0.65-0.80; ORTNBC 0.72, 95% CI 0.65-0.81), and an increased likelihood of adjuvant radiation (ORHER2+ 1.14, 95% CI 1.02-1.27; ORTNBC 1.40, 95% CI 1.25-1.57). Conclusions: One fifth of women with breast cancer over age 80 are diagnosed with HER2+ and triple-negative subtypes, which are associated with more aggressive local therapy. Further studies are warranted to determine if higher rates of adjuvant radiation optimize local control in older HER2+ and TNBC patients at increased risk for early locoregional recurrences.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephanie M Wong
- McGill University, Jewish General Hospital Segal Cancer Centre, Montréal, QC, Canada
| | - Jean-Francois Boileau
- McGill University, Jewish General Hospital Segal Cancer Centre, Montréal, QC, Canada
| | - Mariam Rana
- Jewish General Hospital Segal Cancer Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - Thierry Muanza
- McGill University, Jewish General Hospital, Montréal, QC, Canada
| | - Richard G. Margolese
- McGill University, Jewish General Hospital Segal Cancer Centre, Montréal, QC, Canada
| | - Johanne Monette
- McGill University, Jewish General Hospital, Montréal, QC, Canada
| | - Boris Bahoric
- McGill University, Jewish General Hospital, Montréal, QC, Canada
| | - Mark Basik
- McGill University, Jewish General Hospital Segal Cancer Centre, Montréal, QC, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Affiliation(s)
- Richard G. Margolese
- Director, Cancer 2000, National Cancer Institute of Canada, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - William K. Adair
- Director, Cancer 2000, National Cancer Institute of Canada, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Bandos H, Melnikow J, Rivera DR, Swain SM, Sturtz K, Fehrenbacher L, Wade JL, Brufsky AM, Julian TB, Margolese RG, McCarron EC, Ganz PA. Long-term Peripheral Neuropathy in Breast Cancer Patients Treated With Adjuvant Chemotherapy: NRG Oncology/NSABP B-30. J Natl Cancer Inst 2018; 110:4093779. [PMID: 28954297 PMCID: PMC5825682 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djx162] [Citation(s) in RCA: 69] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/20/2017] [Revised: 06/02/2017] [Accepted: 07/07/2017] [Indexed: 01/10/2023] Open
Abstract
Background The long-term effects of chemotherapy are sparsely reported. Peripheral neuropathy (PN) is one of the most frequent toxicities associated with taxane use for the treatment of early-stage breast cancer. We investigated the impact of the three different docetaxel-based regimens and patient characteristics on long-term, patient-reported outcomes of PN and the impact of PN on long-term quality of life (QOL). Methods The National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol B-30 was a randomized trial comparing sequential doxorubicin (A) and cyclophosphamide (C) followed by docetaxel (T) (AC→T), concurrent ACT, or AT in women with node-positive, early-stage breast cancer. The AC→T group had a higher cumulative dose of T. PN was one of the symptoms assessed in a QOL substudy. Statistical methods included simple and mixed ordinal logistic regression and general linear models. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results Of 1512 patients, 41.9% reported PN two years after treatment initiation. Treatment with AT and ACT was associated with less severe long-term PN compared with AC→T (odds ratio [OR] = 0.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.35 to 0.58; OR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.46 to 0.75). Preexisting PN, older age, obesity, mastectomy, and greater number of positive nodes were also associated with higher risk of long-term PN. Patients who reported worse PN symptoms at 24 months had statistically significantly worse QOL (Ptrend < .001). Conclusions The administration of docetaxel is associated with long-term PN. The lower rate of long-term PN in AT and ACT patients might be an important consideration in supporting choosing these therapies for individuals with preexisting neuropathic symptoms or other risk factors for neuropathy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hanna Bandos
- NRG Oncology and The University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA
| | - Joy Melnikow
- Center for Healthcare Policy and Research, University of California
Davis, Sacramento, CA
| | - Donna R. Rivera
- Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer
Institute, Rockville, MD
| | - Sandra M. Swain
- NRG Oncology and The Washington Cancer Institute at Washington Hospital
Center, Washington, DC and current: Georgetown University, Washington, DC
| | - Keren Sturtz
- NRG Oncology and The Colorado Cancer Research Program, Denver, CO
| | | | - James L. Wade
- NRG Oncology and The Central Illinois CCOP Heartland NCORP, Decatur,
IL
| | - Adam M. Brufsky
- NRG Oncology and The University of Pittsburgh/Magee Womens Hospital,
Pittsburgh, PA
| | | | - Richard G. Margolese
- NRG Oncology and The Jewish General Hospital, McGill University,
Montréal, QC, Canada
| | - Edward C. McCarron
- NRG Oncology and The MedStar Franklin Square Medical Center/Harry and
Jeanette Weinberg Cancer Institute, Baltimore, MD
| | - Patricia A. Ganz
- NRG Oncology and The University of California Los Angeles, Schools of
Medicine and Public Health, Los Angeles, CA
- Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Bear HD, Tang G, Rastogi P, Geyer CE, Zoon CK, Kidwell KM, Robidoux A, Baez-Diaz L, Brufsky AM, Mehta RS, Fehrenbacher L, Young JA, Senecal FM, Gaur R, Margolese RG, Adams PT, Gross HM, Costantino JP, Paik S, Swain SM, Mamounas EP, Wolmark N. The Effect on Surgical Complications of Bevacizumab Added to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer: NRG Oncology/NSABP Protocol B-40. Ann Surg Oncol 2016; 24:1853-1860. [PMID: 27864694 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-016-5662-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/01/2016] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND NRG Oncology/NSABP trial B-40 tested the impact of adding bevacizumab (bev) to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for operable breast cancer. Secondary endpoints included rates of surgical complications after surgery in patients who did or did not receive bev. METHODS A total of 1206 women with HER2-negative operable breast cancer were randomly assigned to receive one of three different docetaxel-plus-anthracycline-based regimens, without or with bev (15 mg/kg every 3 weeks) for the first 6 of 8 cycles and for 10 doses postoperatively. Surgical complications were assessed from date of surgery through 24 months following study entry. RESULTS Early surgical complications were significantly more frequent in the bev group (25.4 vs. 18.9%; trend test p = 0.008), but most were grade 1-2. Early noninfectious wound dehiscences were infrequent and not significantly different (5.4 vs. 3.1%; trend test p = 0.15). Long-term noninfectious wound complications were significantly higher for patients receiving bev (11.8 vs. 5.1%; trend test p = 0.0007), but the incidence of grade ≥3 wound dehiscence was low in both groups (<1%). Among 193 patients undergoing expander or implant reconstructions, 19 (19.6%) of 97 in the bev-receiving group versus 10 (10.4%) of 96 in the non-bev group had grade ≥3 complications (Pearson, p = 0.11). CONCLUSIONS Overall, adding bev increased surgical complications, but most serious complications were not significantly increased. In particular, the need for surgical intervention in patients undergoing breast reconstruction with prosthetic implants was higher with bev but was not statistically significantly different. With precautions, bev can be used safely perioperatively in patients undergoing surgery for breast cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Harry D Bear
- NRG Oncology and the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) (NSABP legacy trials are now part of the NRG Oncology portfolio), Pittsburgh, PA, USA. .,Massey Cancer Center, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA.
| | - Gong Tang
- NRG Oncology and the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) (NSABP legacy trials are now part of the NRG Oncology portfolio), Pittsburgh, PA, USA.,University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Priya Rastogi
- NRG Oncology and the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) (NSABP legacy trials are now part of the NRG Oncology portfolio), Pittsburgh, PA, USA.,University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Charles E Geyer
- NRG Oncology and the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) (NSABP legacy trials are now part of the NRG Oncology portfolio), Pittsburgh, PA, USA.,Massey Cancer Center, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA
| | - Christine K Zoon
- Massey Cancer Center, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA
| | - Kelley M Kidwell
- NRG Oncology and the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) (NSABP legacy trials are now part of the NRG Oncology portfolio), Pittsburgh, PA, USA.,University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.,Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - André Robidoux
- NRG Oncology and the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) (NSABP legacy trials are now part of the NRG Oncology portfolio), Pittsburgh, PA, USA.,Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CHUM), Montréal, QC, Canada
| | - Luis Baez-Diaz
- NRG Oncology and the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) (NSABP legacy trials are now part of the NRG Oncology portfolio), Pittsburgh, PA, USA.,San Juan MBCCOP, San Juan, PR, USA
| | - Adam M Brufsky
- NRG Oncology and the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) (NSABP legacy trials are now part of the NRG Oncology portfolio), Pittsburgh, PA, USA.,University of Pittsburgh/Magee Womens Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Rita S Mehta
- NRG Oncology and the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) (NSABP legacy trials are now part of the NRG Oncology portfolio), Pittsburgh, PA, USA.,School of Medicine, Chao Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California at Irvine, Orange, CA, USA
| | - Louis Fehrenbacher
- NRG Oncology and the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) (NSABP legacy trials are now part of the NRG Oncology portfolio), Pittsburgh, PA, USA.,Kaiser Permanente Oncology Clinical Trials, Northern California, Vallejo, CA, USA
| | - James A Young
- NRG Oncology and the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) (NSABP legacy trials are now part of the NRG Oncology portfolio), Pittsburgh, PA, USA.,CCOP, Colorado Cancer Research Program, Colorado Springs, CO, USA
| | - Francis M Senecal
- NRG Oncology and the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) (NSABP legacy trials are now part of the NRG Oncology portfolio), Pittsburgh, PA, USA.,CCOP, North-West Medical Specialties, Tacoma, WA, USA
| | - Rakesh Gaur
- NRG Oncology and the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) (NSABP legacy trials are now part of the NRG Oncology portfolio), Pittsburgh, PA, USA.,Kansas City Clinical Oncology Program, Kansas City, MO, USA
| | - Richard G Margolese
- NRG Oncology and the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) (NSABP legacy trials are now part of the NRG Oncology portfolio), Pittsburgh, PA, USA.,Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada
| | - Paul T Adams
- NRG Oncology and the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) (NSABP legacy trials are now part of the NRG Oncology portfolio), Pittsburgh, PA, USA.,Genesys Regional Medical Center, Grand Blanc, MI, USA
| | - Howard M Gross
- NRG Oncology and the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) (NSABP legacy trials are now part of the NRG Oncology portfolio), Pittsburgh, PA, USA.,Dayton CCOP, Dayton, OH, USA
| | - Joseph P Costantino
- NRG Oncology and the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) (NSABP legacy trials are now part of the NRG Oncology portfolio), Pittsburgh, PA, USA.,University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Soonmyung Paik
- NRG Oncology and the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) (NSABP legacy trials are now part of the NRG Oncology portfolio), Pittsburgh, PA, USA.,Severance Biomedical Science Institute and Department of Medical Oncology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Sandra M Swain
- NRG Oncology and the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) (NSABP legacy trials are now part of the NRG Oncology portfolio), Pittsburgh, PA, USA.,Washington Cancer Institute, Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC, USA.,Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Eleftherios P Mamounas
- NRG Oncology and the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) (NSABP legacy trials are now part of the NRG Oncology portfolio), Pittsburgh, PA, USA.,UF Health Cancer Center at Orlando Health, Orlando, FL, USA
| | - Norman Wolmark
- NRG Oncology and the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) (NSABP legacy trials are now part of the NRG Oncology portfolio), Pittsburgh, PA, USA.,Allegheny Health Network Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Robidoux A, Tang G, Rastogi P, Geyer CE, Azar CA, Atkins JN, Fehrenbacher L, Bear HD, Baez-Diaz L, Sarwar S, Margolese RG, Farrar WB, Brufsky AM, Shibata HR, Bandos H, Paik S, Costantino JP, Swain SM, Mamounas EP, Wolmark N. Evaluation of lapatinib as a component of neoadjuvant therapy for HER2+ operable breast cancer: 5-year outcomes of NSABP protocol B-41. J Clin Oncol 2016. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2016.34.15_suppl.501] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Andre Robidoux
- NSABP/NRG Oncology, and Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada
| | - Gong Tang
- NRG Oncology, and The University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA
| | - Priya Rastogi
- NSABP/NRG Oncology, and The Magee Womens Hospital University of Pittsburgh Medical Cancer Center, Pittsburgh, PA
| | - Charles E. Geyer
- NSABP/NRG Oncology, and The Massey Cancer Center, Virginia Commonwealth University, Pittsburgh, PA
| | | | - James Norman Atkins
- NSABP/NRG Oncology, and The Southeastern Medical Oncology Center, Goldsboro, NC
| | - Louis Fehrenbacher
- NSABP/NRG Oncology, and Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Novato, CA
| | - Harry Douglas Bear
- NRG Oncology, and The Massey Cancer Center, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA
| | | | - Shakir Sarwar
- NSABP/NRG Oncology, and The Columbus NCORP - Grant Medical Center, Columbus, OH
| | - Richard G. Margolese
- NSABP/NRG Oncology, and McGill University, Jewish General Hospital, Montréal, QC, Canada
| | - William Blair Farrar
- NSABP/NRG Oncology, and The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH
| | - Adam M. Brufsky
- NSABP/NRG Oncology, and The Magee Womens Hospital, UPMC, Pittsburgh, PA
| | - Henry R. Shibata
- NSABP/NRG Oncology, and The Royal Victoria Hospital, McGill University Health Centre, Montréal, QC, Canada
| | - Hanna Bandos
- NRG Oncology, and The University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA
| | - Soonmyung Paik
- NSABP/NRG Oncology, and The Severance BioMedical Science Institute and Yonsei University College of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA
| | | | - Sandra M. Swain
- NSABP/NRG Oncology, and The Washington Cancer Institute, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC
| | | | - Norman Wolmark
- NSABP/NRG Oncology, and The Allegheny Cancer Center at Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Margolese RG, Cecchini RS, Julian TB, Ganz PA, Costantino JP, Vallow LA, Albain KS, Whitworth PW, Cianfrocca ME, Brufsky AM, Gross HM, Soori GS, Hopkins JO, Fehrenbacher L, Sturtz K, Wozniak TF, Seay TE, Mamounas EP, Wolmark N. Anastrozole versus tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with ductal carcinoma in situ undergoing lumpectomy plus radiotherapy (NSABP B-35): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial. Lancet 2016; 387:849-56. [PMID: 26686957 PMCID: PMC4792688 DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(15)01168-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 110] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Ductal carcinoma in situ is currently managed with excision, radiotherapy, and adjuvant hormone therapy, usually tamoxifen. We postulated that an aromatase inhibitor would be safer and more effective. We therefore undertook this trial to compare anastrozole versus tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with ductal carcinoma in situ undergoing lumpectomy plus radiotherapy. METHODS The double-blind, randomised, phase 3 National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) B-35 trial was done in 333 participating NSABP centres in the USA and Canada. Postmenopausal women with hormone-positive ductal carcinoma in situ treated by lumpectomy with clear resection margins and whole-breast irradiation were enrolled and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either oral tamoxifen 20 mg per day (with matching placebo in place of anastrozole) or oral anastrozole 1 mg per day (with matching placebo in place of tamoxifen) for 5 years. Randomisation was stratified by age (<60 vs ≥60 years) and patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was breast cancer-free interval, defined as time from randomisation to any breast cancer event (local, regional, or distant recurrence, or contralateral breast cancer, invasive disease, or ductal carcinoma in situ), analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00053898, and is complete. FINDINGS Between Jan 1, 2003, and June 15, 2006, 3104 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the two treatment groups (1552 to tamoxifen and 1552 to anastrozole). As of Feb 28, 2015, follow-up information was available for 3083 patients for overall survival and 3077 for all other disease-free endpoints, with median follow-up of 9·0 years (IQR 8·2-10·0). In total, 212 breast cancer-free interval events occurred: 122 in the tamoxifen group and 90 in the anastrozole group (HR 0·73 [95% CI 0·56-0·96], p=0·0234). A significant time-by-treatment interaction (p=0·0410) became evident later in the study. There was also a significant interaction between treatment and age group (p=0·0379), showing that anastrozole is superior only in women younger than 60 years of age. Adverse events did not differ between the groups, except for thrombosis or embolism--a known side-effect of tamoxifen-for which there were 17 grade 4 or worse events in the tamoxifen group versus four in the anastrozole group. INTERPRETATION Compared with tamoxifen, anastrozole treatment provided a significant improvement in breast cancer-free interval, mainly in women younger than 60 years of age. This finding means that women will benefit from having a choice of effective agents for ductal carcinoma in situ. FUNDING US National Cancer Institute and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP.
Collapse
MESH Headings
- Administration, Oral
- Age Factors
- Anastrozole
- Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal/administration & dosage
- Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal/adverse effects
- Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal/therapeutic use
- Aromatase Inhibitors/administration & dosage
- Aromatase Inhibitors/adverse effects
- Aromatase Inhibitors/therapeutic use
- Breast Neoplasms/drug therapy
- Breast Neoplasms/radiotherapy
- Breast Neoplasms/surgery
- Carcinoma, Ductal, Breast/drug therapy
- Carcinoma, Ductal, Breast/radiotherapy
- Carcinoma, Ductal, Breast/surgery
- Combined Modality Therapy
- Double-Blind Method
- Embolism/chemically induced
- Female
- Humans
- Mastectomy, Segmental
- Middle Aged
- Nitriles/administration & dosage
- Nitriles/adverse effects
- Nitriles/therapeutic use
- Postmenopause
- Tamoxifen/administration & dosage
- Tamoxifen/adverse effects
- Tamoxifen/therapeutic use
- Thrombosis/chemically induced
- Triazoles/administration & dosage
- Triazoles/adverse effects
- Triazoles/therapeutic use
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Richard G Margolese
- NRG Oncology/National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP), Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
| | - Reena S Cecchini
- NRG Oncology/National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP), Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Department of Biostatistics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Thomas B Julian
- NRG Oncology/National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP), Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Department of Surgical Oncology, Allegheny Cancer Center at Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Patricia A Ganz
- NRG Oncology/National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP), Pittsburgh, PA, USA; University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Joseph P Costantino
- NRG Oncology/National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP), Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Department of Biostatistics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Laura A Vallow
- NRG Oncology/National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP), Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Kathy S Albain
- NRG Oncology/National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP), Pittsburgh, PA, USA; SWOG, San Antonio, TX, USA; Department of Medicine, Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Patrick W Whitworth
- NRG Oncology/National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP), Pittsburgh, PA, USA; ALLIANCE/ACOSOG, Chicago, IL, USA; Nashville Breast Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Mary E Cianfrocca
- NRG Oncology/National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP), Pittsburgh, PA, USA; SWOG, San Antonio, TX, USA; ECOG/ACRIN, Philadelphia, PA, USA; Department of Hematology/Oncology, Banner MD Anderson Cancer Center, Gilbert, AZ, USA
| | - Adam M Brufsky
- NRG Oncology/National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP), Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Department of Hematology/Oncology, Magee Womens Hospital/University of Pittsburgh Department of Hematology/Oncology, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Howard M Gross
- NRG Oncology/National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP), Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Dayton Physicians LLC, Dayton, OH, USA
| | - Gamini S Soori
- NRG Oncology/National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP), Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Missouri Valley Cancer Consortium, Omaha, NE, USA
| | - Judith O Hopkins
- NRG Oncology/National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP), Pittsburgh, PA, USA; SCOR NCORP, Winston Salem, NC, USA; Department of Hematology/Oncology, Forsyth Regional Cancer Center, Winston Salem, NC, USA
| | - Louis Fehrenbacher
- NRG Oncology/National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP), Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Department of Medical Oncology, Kaiser Permanente Northern California Vallejo, CA, USA
| | - Keren Sturtz
- NRG Oncology/National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP), Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Department of Medical Oncology Colorado Cancer Research Program, Denver, CO, USA
| | - Timothy F Wozniak
- NRG Oncology/National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP), Pittsburgh, PA, USA; CCOP, Christiana Care Health Systems, Newark, DE, USA
| | - Thomas E Seay
- NRG Oncology/National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP), Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Atlanta Regional Community Clinical Oncology Program, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Eleftherios P Mamounas
- NRG Oncology/National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP), Pittsburgh, PA, USA; UF Health Cancer Center at Orlando Health, Orlando, FL, USA
| | - Norman Wolmark
- NRG Oncology/National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP), Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Department of Surgical Oncology, Allegheny Cancer Center at Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Ganz PA, Cecchini RS, Julian TB, Margolese RG, Costantino JP, Vallow LA, Albain KS, Whitworth PW, Cianfrocca ME, Brufsky AM, Gross HM, Soori GS, Hopkins JO, Fehrenbacher L, Sturtz K, Wozniak TF, Seay TE, Mamounas EP, Wolmark N. Patient-reported outcomes with anastrozole versus tamoxifen for postmenopausal patients with ductal carcinoma in situ treated with lumpectomy plus radiotherapy (NSABP B-35): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial. Lancet 2016; 387:857-65. [PMID: 26686960 PMCID: PMC4792658 DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(15)01169-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 54] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The NSABP B-35 trial compared 5 years of treatment with anastrozole versus tamoxifen for reducing subsequent occurrence of breast cancer in postmenopausal patients with ductal carcinoma in situ. This report assesses the effect of these drugs on quality of life and symptoms. METHODS The study was done at 333 hospitals in North America. Postmenopausal women with hormone-positive ductal carcinoma in situ treated by lumpectomy with clear resection margins and whole breast irradiation were randomly assigned to receive either tamoxifen (20 mg/day) or anastrazole (1 mg/day) for 5 years, stratified by age (<60 years vs ≥60 years). Patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. Patients completed questionnaires at baseline and every 6 months thereafter for 6 years. The primary outcomes were SF-12 physical and mental health component scale scores, and vasomotor symptoms (as per the BCPT symptom scale). Secondary outcomes were vaginal symptoms and sexual functioning. Exploratory outcomes were musculoskeletal pain, bladder symptoms, gynaecological symptoms, cognitive symptoms, weight problems, vitality, and depression. We did the analyses by intention to treat, including patients who completed questionnaires at baseline and at least once during follow-up. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00053898. FINDINGS Between Jan 6, 2003, and June 15, 2006, 3104 patients were enrolled in the study, of whom 1193 were included in the quality-of-life substudy: 601 assigned to tamoxifen and 592 assigned to anastrozole. We detected no significant difference between treatment groups for: physical health scores (mean severity score 46·72 for tamoxifen vs 45·85 for anastrozole; p=0·20), mental health scores (52·38 vs 51·48; p=0·38), energy and fatigue (58·34 vs 57·54; p=0·86), or symptoms of depression (6·19 vs 6·39; p=0·46) over 5 years. Vasomotor symptoms (1·33 vs 1·17; p=0·011), difficulty with bladder control (0·96 vs 0·80; p=0·0002), and gynaecological symptoms (0·29 vs 0·18; p<0·0001) were significantly more severe in the tamoxifen group than in the anastrozole group. Musculoskeletal pain (1·50 vs 1·72; p=0·0006) and vaginal symptoms (0·76 vs 0·86; p=0·035) were significantly worse in the anastrozole group than in the tamoxifen group. Sexual functioning did not differ significantly between the two treatments (43·65 vs 45·29; p=0·56). Younger age was significantly associated with more severe vasomotor symptoms (mean severity score 1·45 for age <60 years vs 0·65 for age ≥60 years; p=0·0006), vaginal symptoms (0·98 vs 0·65; p<0·0001), weight problems (1·32 vs 1·02; p<0·0001), and gynaecological symptoms (0·26 vs 0·22; p=0·014). INTERPRETATION Given the similar efficacy of tamoxifen and anastrozole for women older than age 60 years, decisions about treatment should be informed by the risk for serious adverse health effects and the symptoms associated with each drug. For women younger than 60 years old, treatment decisions might be driven by efficacy (favouring anastrozole); however, if the side-effects of anastrozole are intolerable, then switching to tamoxifen is a good alternative. FUNDING US National Cancer Institute, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Patricia A Ganz
- NRG Oncology/National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, Pittsburgh, PA, USA; University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
| | - Reena S Cecchini
- NRG Oncology, Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Department of Biostatistics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Thomas B Julian
- NRG Oncology/National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Department of Surgical Oncology, Allegheny Cancer Center at Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Richard G Margolese
- NRG Oncology/National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, Pittsburgh, PA, USA; The Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada
| | - Joseph P Costantino
- NRG Oncology, Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Department of Biostatistics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Laura A Vallow
- NRG Oncology/National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Kathy S Albain
- NRG Oncology/National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Southwest Oncology Group, San Antonio, TX, USA; Department of Medicine, Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Patrick W Whitworth
- NRG Oncology/National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology/American College of Surgeons Oncology Group, Chicago, IL, USA; Nashville Breast Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Mary E Cianfrocca
- NRG Oncology/National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Southwest Oncology Group, San Antonio, TX, USA; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group/American College of Radiology Imaging Network, Philadelphia, PA, USA; Department of Hematology/Oncology, Banner MD Anderson Cancer Center, Gilbert, AZ, USA
| | - Adam M Brufsky
- NRG Oncology/National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Department of Hematology/Oncology, Magee Womens Hospital/University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Howard M Gross
- NRG Oncology/National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Dayton Physicians, Dayton, OH, USA
| | - Gamini S Soori
- NRG Oncology/National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Missouri Valley Cancer Consortium, Omaha, NE, USA
| | - Judith O Hopkins
- NRG Oncology/National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Southeast Clinical Oncology Research Consortium National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program, Winston Salem, NC, USA; Department of Hematology/Oncology, Forsyth Regional Cancer Center, Winston Salem, NC, USA
| | - Louis Fehrenbacher
- NRG Oncology/National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Department of Medical Oncology, Kaiser Permanente, Northern California Vallejo, CA, USA
| | - Keren Sturtz
- NRG Oncology/National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Department of Medical Oncology Colorado Cancer Research Program, Denver, CO, USA
| | - Timothy F Wozniak
- NRG Oncology/National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Community Clinical Oncology Program, Christiana Care Health Systems, Wilmington, DE, USA
| | - Thomas E Seay
- NRG Oncology/National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Atlanta Regional Community Clinical Oncology Program, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Eleftherios P Mamounas
- NRG Oncology/National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, Pittsburgh, PA, USA; UF Health Cancer Center at Orlando Health, Orlando, FL, USA
| | - Norman Wolmark
- NRG Oncology/National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Department of Surgical Oncology, Allegheny Cancer Center at Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Ganz PA, Cecchini RS, Julian TB, Margolese RG, Costantino JP, Vallow LA, Albain KS, Whitworth PW, Cianfrocca ME, Brufsky A, Gross HM, Soori GS, Hopkins JO, Fehrenbacher L, Sturtz K, Wozniak TF, Seay TE, Mamounas EP, Wolmark N. Abstract S6-04: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) results, NRG Oncology/NSABP B-35: A clinical trial of anastrozole (A) vs tamoxifen (tam) in postmenopausal patients with DCIS undergoing lumpectomy plus radiotherapy. Cancer Res 2016. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs15-s6-04] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background
The clinical results of NSABP B-35, phase III trial comparing 1 mg/day A to 20 mg/day tam, each given for 5 years, were reported at ASCO 2015. B-35 demonstrated a statistically significant benefit in breast cancer free interval for women assigned to A, primarily in women <60 years. A secondary endpoint of B-35 was quality of life (QOL) and symptom (SX) outcomes in the two treatment groups. The primary hypotheses of the PRO study were that there would be no differences in QOL between the two treatments, and that patients receiving A would report higher rates of hot flashes compared to patients receiving tam. Other SX comparisons were secondary endpoints.
Methods
QOL and SX were assessed at baseline (prior to randomization), and every 6 months thereafter for 5 years of treatment and in the following 12 months. QOL was measured with the SF-12 Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS). SX were measured with selected scales from the BCPT symptom-checklist, and other standardized instruments. Stratification was by age (<60 v ≥60) as in the main trial. Study hypotheses and endpoints were examined by comparing PROs in the two treatment arms using a mixed model for repeated measures analysis with adjustment for the baseline scores, time point and age category, using an intention-to-treat principle and including only patients who completed the baseline and at least one follow-up questionnaire. Patients with protocol events were censored. Only data through 60 months are reported here. The accrual goal for the sub-study was 1,150 consecutive patients.
Results
Between January 6, 2003 and June 15, 2006, a total of 3,104 patients were entered and randomly assigned to NSABP Protocol B-35. Accrual to the PRO study of B-35 closed on December 28, 2004, at which time 1,275 patients were entered, with 1,193 patients included in this analysis. There were no medical or demographic differences between patients assigned to A or tam in the PRO sub-study, and they reflected the characteristics of the parent trial. Adherence to data collection across the 60 months was 87%. There were no significant differences in QOL outcomes by treatment for the PCS (p=0.16) or the MCS (p=0.38). SX subscales: hot flash scale was greater in tam group and this difference varied over time (p=0.001); musculoskeletal pain was significantly greater in A group for time points 6-24 months (all p<.001); vaginal problems were greater in A group (p=0.03). Hot flash and vaginal problems were significantly worse in women <60 years. Additional SX outcomes (depression, fatigue, sexual function) will be reported at presentation.
Conclusion
In this large, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial comparing A to tam in patients with DCIS, there was no significant difference in QOL between the two treatments. However, there were important treatment differences in SX outcomes, which should be considered as part of treatment decision-making discussions, along with the clinical breast cancer outcome results.
Support: CA-180868, 180822, 189867, 196067, 114732; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP.
Citation Format: Ganz PA, Cecchini RS, Julian TB, Margolese RG, Costantino JP, Vallow LA, Albain KS, Whitworth PW, Cianfrocca ME, Brufsky A, Gross HM, Soori GS, Hopkins JO, Fehrenbacher L, Sturtz K, Wozniak TF, Seay TE, Mamounas EP, Wolmark N. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) results, NRG Oncology/NSABP B-35: A clinical trial of anastrozole (A) vs tamoxifen (tam) in postmenopausal patients with DCIS undergoing lumpectomy plus radiotherapy. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2015 Dec 8-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(4 Suppl):Abstract nr S6-04.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- PA Ganz
- NSABP/NRG Oncology; UCLA Schools of Medicine and Public Health and Jonsson Comprehensive Cance Center; University of Pittsburgh; Allegheny Cancer Center at Allegheny General Hospital; Jewish General Hospital, McGill University; NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center (SDMC); Mayo Clinic; Loyola University Chicago Cardinal Benardin Cancer Center; Nashville Breast Center; Fox Chase and Northwestern (ECOG); Magee-Women's Hospital, University of Pittsburgh; Dayton NCORP; Missouri Valley Cancer Consortium; Novant Health; Kaiser Permanente Northern California; Colorado Cancer Research Program; Christiana Care CCOP; Atlanta Regional CCOP; UF Health Cancer Center at Orlando Health
| | - RS Cecchini
- NSABP/NRG Oncology; UCLA Schools of Medicine and Public Health and Jonsson Comprehensive Cance Center; University of Pittsburgh; Allegheny Cancer Center at Allegheny General Hospital; Jewish General Hospital, McGill University; NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center (SDMC); Mayo Clinic; Loyola University Chicago Cardinal Benardin Cancer Center; Nashville Breast Center; Fox Chase and Northwestern (ECOG); Magee-Women's Hospital, University of Pittsburgh; Dayton NCORP; Missouri Valley Cancer Consortium; Novant Health; Kaiser Permanente Northern California; Colorado Cancer Research Program; Christiana Care CCOP; Atlanta Regional CCOP; UF Health Cancer Center at Orlando Health
| | - TB Julian
- NSABP/NRG Oncology; UCLA Schools of Medicine and Public Health and Jonsson Comprehensive Cance Center; University of Pittsburgh; Allegheny Cancer Center at Allegheny General Hospital; Jewish General Hospital, McGill University; NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center (SDMC); Mayo Clinic; Loyola University Chicago Cardinal Benardin Cancer Center; Nashville Breast Center; Fox Chase and Northwestern (ECOG); Magee-Women's Hospital, University of Pittsburgh; Dayton NCORP; Missouri Valley Cancer Consortium; Novant Health; Kaiser Permanente Northern California; Colorado Cancer Research Program; Christiana Care CCOP; Atlanta Regional CCOP; UF Health Cancer Center at Orlando Health
| | - RG Margolese
- NSABP/NRG Oncology; UCLA Schools of Medicine and Public Health and Jonsson Comprehensive Cance Center; University of Pittsburgh; Allegheny Cancer Center at Allegheny General Hospital; Jewish General Hospital, McGill University; NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center (SDMC); Mayo Clinic; Loyola University Chicago Cardinal Benardin Cancer Center; Nashville Breast Center; Fox Chase and Northwestern (ECOG); Magee-Women's Hospital, University of Pittsburgh; Dayton NCORP; Missouri Valley Cancer Consortium; Novant Health; Kaiser Permanente Northern California; Colorado Cancer Research Program; Christiana Care CCOP; Atlanta Regional CCOP; UF Health Cancer Center at Orlando Health
| | - JP Costantino
- NSABP/NRG Oncology; UCLA Schools of Medicine and Public Health and Jonsson Comprehensive Cance Center; University of Pittsburgh; Allegheny Cancer Center at Allegheny General Hospital; Jewish General Hospital, McGill University; NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center (SDMC); Mayo Clinic; Loyola University Chicago Cardinal Benardin Cancer Center; Nashville Breast Center; Fox Chase and Northwestern (ECOG); Magee-Women's Hospital, University of Pittsburgh; Dayton NCORP; Missouri Valley Cancer Consortium; Novant Health; Kaiser Permanente Northern California; Colorado Cancer Research Program; Christiana Care CCOP; Atlanta Regional CCOP; UF Health Cancer Center at Orlando Health
| | - LA Vallow
- NSABP/NRG Oncology; UCLA Schools of Medicine and Public Health and Jonsson Comprehensive Cance Center; University of Pittsburgh; Allegheny Cancer Center at Allegheny General Hospital; Jewish General Hospital, McGill University; NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center (SDMC); Mayo Clinic; Loyola University Chicago Cardinal Benardin Cancer Center; Nashville Breast Center; Fox Chase and Northwestern (ECOG); Magee-Women's Hospital, University of Pittsburgh; Dayton NCORP; Missouri Valley Cancer Consortium; Novant Health; Kaiser Permanente Northern California; Colorado Cancer Research Program; Christiana Care CCOP; Atlanta Regional CCOP; UF Health Cancer Center at Orlando Health
| | - KS Albain
- NSABP/NRG Oncology; UCLA Schools of Medicine and Public Health and Jonsson Comprehensive Cance Center; University of Pittsburgh; Allegheny Cancer Center at Allegheny General Hospital; Jewish General Hospital, McGill University; NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center (SDMC); Mayo Clinic; Loyola University Chicago Cardinal Benardin Cancer Center; Nashville Breast Center; Fox Chase and Northwestern (ECOG); Magee-Women's Hospital, University of Pittsburgh; Dayton NCORP; Missouri Valley Cancer Consortium; Novant Health; Kaiser Permanente Northern California; Colorado Cancer Research Program; Christiana Care CCOP; Atlanta Regional CCOP; UF Health Cancer Center at Orlando Health
| | - PW Whitworth
- NSABP/NRG Oncology; UCLA Schools of Medicine and Public Health and Jonsson Comprehensive Cance Center; University of Pittsburgh; Allegheny Cancer Center at Allegheny General Hospital; Jewish General Hospital, McGill University; NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center (SDMC); Mayo Clinic; Loyola University Chicago Cardinal Benardin Cancer Center; Nashville Breast Center; Fox Chase and Northwestern (ECOG); Magee-Women's Hospital, University of Pittsburgh; Dayton NCORP; Missouri Valley Cancer Consortium; Novant Health; Kaiser Permanente Northern California; Colorado Cancer Research Program; Christiana Care CCOP; Atlanta Regional CCOP; UF Health Cancer Center at Orlando Health
| | - ME Cianfrocca
- NSABP/NRG Oncology; UCLA Schools of Medicine and Public Health and Jonsson Comprehensive Cance Center; University of Pittsburgh; Allegheny Cancer Center at Allegheny General Hospital; Jewish General Hospital, McGill University; NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center (SDMC); Mayo Clinic; Loyola University Chicago Cardinal Benardin Cancer Center; Nashville Breast Center; Fox Chase and Northwestern (ECOG); Magee-Women's Hospital, University of Pittsburgh; Dayton NCORP; Missouri Valley Cancer Consortium; Novant Health; Kaiser Permanente Northern California; Colorado Cancer Research Program; Christiana Care CCOP; Atlanta Regional CCOP; UF Health Cancer Center at Orlando Health
| | - A Brufsky
- NSABP/NRG Oncology; UCLA Schools of Medicine and Public Health and Jonsson Comprehensive Cance Center; University of Pittsburgh; Allegheny Cancer Center at Allegheny General Hospital; Jewish General Hospital, McGill University; NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center (SDMC); Mayo Clinic; Loyola University Chicago Cardinal Benardin Cancer Center; Nashville Breast Center; Fox Chase and Northwestern (ECOG); Magee-Women's Hospital, University of Pittsburgh; Dayton NCORP; Missouri Valley Cancer Consortium; Novant Health; Kaiser Permanente Northern California; Colorado Cancer Research Program; Christiana Care CCOP; Atlanta Regional CCOP; UF Health Cancer Center at Orlando Health
| | - HM Gross
- NSABP/NRG Oncology; UCLA Schools of Medicine and Public Health and Jonsson Comprehensive Cance Center; University of Pittsburgh; Allegheny Cancer Center at Allegheny General Hospital; Jewish General Hospital, McGill University; NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center (SDMC); Mayo Clinic; Loyola University Chicago Cardinal Benardin Cancer Center; Nashville Breast Center; Fox Chase and Northwestern (ECOG); Magee-Women's Hospital, University of Pittsburgh; Dayton NCORP; Missouri Valley Cancer Consortium; Novant Health; Kaiser Permanente Northern California; Colorado Cancer Research Program; Christiana Care CCOP; Atlanta Regional CCOP; UF Health Cancer Center at Orlando Health
| | - GS Soori
- NSABP/NRG Oncology; UCLA Schools of Medicine and Public Health and Jonsson Comprehensive Cance Center; University of Pittsburgh; Allegheny Cancer Center at Allegheny General Hospital; Jewish General Hospital, McGill University; NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center (SDMC); Mayo Clinic; Loyola University Chicago Cardinal Benardin Cancer Center; Nashville Breast Center; Fox Chase and Northwestern (ECOG); Magee-Women's Hospital, University of Pittsburgh; Dayton NCORP; Missouri Valley Cancer Consortium; Novant Health; Kaiser Permanente Northern California; Colorado Cancer Research Program; Christiana Care CCOP; Atlanta Regional CCOP; UF Health Cancer Center at Orlando Health
| | - JO Hopkins
- NSABP/NRG Oncology; UCLA Schools of Medicine and Public Health and Jonsson Comprehensive Cance Center; University of Pittsburgh; Allegheny Cancer Center at Allegheny General Hospital; Jewish General Hospital, McGill University; NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center (SDMC); Mayo Clinic; Loyola University Chicago Cardinal Benardin Cancer Center; Nashville Breast Center; Fox Chase and Northwestern (ECOG); Magee-Women's Hospital, University of Pittsburgh; Dayton NCORP; Missouri Valley Cancer Consortium; Novant Health; Kaiser Permanente Northern California; Colorado Cancer Research Program; Christiana Care CCOP; Atlanta Regional CCOP; UF Health Cancer Center at Orlando Health
| | - L Fehrenbacher
- NSABP/NRG Oncology; UCLA Schools of Medicine and Public Health and Jonsson Comprehensive Cance Center; University of Pittsburgh; Allegheny Cancer Center at Allegheny General Hospital; Jewish General Hospital, McGill University; NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center (SDMC); Mayo Clinic; Loyola University Chicago Cardinal Benardin Cancer Center; Nashville Breast Center; Fox Chase and Northwestern (ECOG); Magee-Women's Hospital, University of Pittsburgh; Dayton NCORP; Missouri Valley Cancer Consortium; Novant Health; Kaiser Permanente Northern California; Colorado Cancer Research Program; Christiana Care CCOP; Atlanta Regional CCOP; UF Health Cancer Center at Orlando Health
| | - K Sturtz
- NSABP/NRG Oncology; UCLA Schools of Medicine and Public Health and Jonsson Comprehensive Cance Center; University of Pittsburgh; Allegheny Cancer Center at Allegheny General Hospital; Jewish General Hospital, McGill University; NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center (SDMC); Mayo Clinic; Loyola University Chicago Cardinal Benardin Cancer Center; Nashville Breast Center; Fox Chase and Northwestern (ECOG); Magee-Women's Hospital, University of Pittsburgh; Dayton NCORP; Missouri Valley Cancer Consortium; Novant Health; Kaiser Permanente Northern California; Colorado Cancer Research Program; Christiana Care CCOP; Atlanta Regional CCOP; UF Health Cancer Center at Orlando Health
| | - TF Wozniak
- NSABP/NRG Oncology; UCLA Schools of Medicine and Public Health and Jonsson Comprehensive Cance Center; University of Pittsburgh; Allegheny Cancer Center at Allegheny General Hospital; Jewish General Hospital, McGill University; NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center (SDMC); Mayo Clinic; Loyola University Chicago Cardinal Benardin Cancer Center; Nashville Breast Center; Fox Chase and Northwestern (ECOG); Magee-Women's Hospital, University of Pittsburgh; Dayton NCORP; Missouri Valley Cancer Consortium; Novant Health; Kaiser Permanente Northern California; Colorado Cancer Research Program; Christiana Care CCOP; Atlanta Regional CCOP; UF Health Cancer Center at Orlando Health
| | - TE Seay
- NSABP/NRG Oncology; UCLA Schools of Medicine and Public Health and Jonsson Comprehensive Cance Center; University of Pittsburgh; Allegheny Cancer Center at Allegheny General Hospital; Jewish General Hospital, McGill University; NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center (SDMC); Mayo Clinic; Loyola University Chicago Cardinal Benardin Cancer Center; Nashville Breast Center; Fox Chase and Northwestern (ECOG); Magee-Women's Hospital, University of Pittsburgh; Dayton NCORP; Missouri Valley Cancer Consortium; Novant Health; Kaiser Permanente Northern California; Colorado Cancer Research Program; Christiana Care CCOP; Atlanta Regional CCOP; UF Health Cancer Center at Orlando Health
| | - EP Mamounas
- NSABP/NRG Oncology; UCLA Schools of Medicine and Public Health and Jonsson Comprehensive Cance Center; University of Pittsburgh; Allegheny Cancer Center at Allegheny General Hospital; Jewish General Hospital, McGill University; NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center (SDMC); Mayo Clinic; Loyola University Chicago Cardinal Benardin Cancer Center; Nashville Breast Center; Fox Chase and Northwestern (ECOG); Magee-Women's Hospital, University of Pittsburgh; Dayton NCORP; Missouri Valley Cancer Consortium; Novant Health; Kaiser Permanente Northern California; Colorado Cancer Research Program; Christiana Care CCOP; Atlanta Regional CCOP; UF Health Cancer Center at Orlando Health
| | - N Wolmark
- NSABP/NRG Oncology; UCLA Schools of Medicine and Public Health and Jonsson Comprehensive Cance Center; University of Pittsburgh; Allegheny Cancer Center at Allegheny General Hospital; Jewish General Hospital, McGill University; NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center (SDMC); Mayo Clinic; Loyola University Chicago Cardinal Benardin Cancer Center; Nashville Breast Center; Fox Chase and Northwestern (ECOG); Magee-Women's Hospital, University of Pittsburgh; Dayton NCORP; Missouri Valley Cancer Consortium; Novant Health; Kaiser Permanente Northern California; Colorado Cancer Research Program; Christiana Care CCOP; Atlanta Regional CCOP; UF Health Cancer Center at Orlando Health
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Bear HD, Tang G, Rastogi P, Geyer CE, Liu Q, Robidoux A, Baez-Diaz L, Brufsky AM, Mehta RS, Fehrenbacher L, Young JA, Senecal FM, Gaur R, Margolese RG, Adams PT, Gross HM, Costantino JP, Paik S, Swain SM, Mamounas EP, Wolmark N. Neoadjuvant plus adjuvant bevacizumab in early breast cancer (NSABP B-40 [NRG Oncology]): secondary outcomes of a phase 3, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2015; 16:1037-1048. [PMID: 26272770 PMCID: PMC4624323 DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(15)00041-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 112] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/07/2015] [Revised: 06/03/2015] [Accepted: 06/05/2015] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND NSABP B-40 was a 3 × 2 factorial trial testing whether adding capecitabine or gemcitabine to docetaxel followed by doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide neoadjuvant chemotherapy would improve outcomes in women with operable, HER2-negative breast cancer and whether adding neoadjuvant plus adjuvant bevacizumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimens would also improve outcomes. As reported previously, addition of neoadjuvant bevacizumab increased the proportion of patients achieving a pathological complete response, which was the primary endpoint. We present secondary patient outcomes, including disease-free survival, a specified endpoint by protocol, and data for distant recurrence-free interval, and overall survival, which were not prespecified endpoints but were collected prospectively. METHODS In this randomised controlled trial (NSABP B-40), we enrolled women aged 18 years or older, with operable, HER2-non-amplified invasive adenocarcinoma of the breast, 2 cm or greater in diameter by palpation, clinical stage T1c-3, cN0, cN1, or cN2a, without metastatic disease and diagnosed by core needle biopsy. Patients received one of three docetaxel-based neoadjuvant regimens for four cycles: docetaxel alone (100 mg/m(2)) with addition of capecitabine (825 mg/m(2) oral twice daily days 1-14, 75 mg/m(2) docetaxel) or with addition of gemcitabine (1000 mg/m(2) days 1 and 8 intravenously, 75 mg/m(2) docetaxel), all followed by neoadjuvant doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (60 mg/m(2) and 600 mg/m(2) intravenously) every 3 weeks for four cycles. Those randomly assigned to bevacizumab groups were to receive bevacizumab (15 mg/kg, every 3 weeks for six cycles) with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and postoperatively for ten doses. Randomisation was done (1:1:1:1:1:1) via a biased-coin minimisation procedure to balance the characteristics with respect to clinical nodal status, clinical tumour size, hormone receptor status, and age. Intent-to-treat analyses were done for disease-free survival and overall survival. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00408408. FINDINGS Between Jan 5, 2007, and June 30, 2010, 1206 patients were enrolled in the study. Follow-up data were collected from Oct 31, 2007 to March 27, 2014, and were available for overall survival in 1186 patients, disease-free survival in 1184, and distant recurrence-free interval in 1181. Neither capecitabine nor gemcitabine increased disease-free survival or overall survival. Median follow-up was 4·7 years (IQR 4·0-5·2). The addition of bevacizumab significantly increased overall survival (hazard ratio 0·65 [95% CI 0·49-0·88]; p=0·004) but did not significantly increase disease-free survival (0·80 [0·63-1·01]; p=0·06). Four deaths occurred on treatment due to vascular disorder (docetaxel plus capecitabine followed by doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide group), sudden death (docetaxel plus capecitabine followed by doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide group), infective endocarditis (docetaxel plus bevacizumab followed by doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide and bevacizumab group), and visceral arterial ischaemia (docetaxel followed by doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide group). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events in the bevacizumab group were neutropenia (grade 3, 99 [17%]; grade 4, 37 [6%]), hand-foot syndrome (grade 3, 63 [11%]), and hypertension (grade 3, 60 [10%]; grade 4, two [<1%]) and in the non-bevacizumab group were neutropenia (grade 3, 98 [16%]; grade 4, 36 [6%]), fatigue (grade 3, 53 [9%]), and hand-foot syndrome (grade 3, 43 [7%]). INTERPRETATION The addition of gemcitabine or capecitabine to neoadjuvant docetaxel plus doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide does not seem to provide any benefit to patients with operable breast cancer, and should not change clinical practice in the short term. The improved overall survival with bevacizumab contradicts the findings of other studies of bevacizumab in breast cancer and may indicate the need for additional investigation of this agent. FUNDING National Institutes of Health, Genentech, Roche Laboratories, Lilly Research Laboratories, and Precision Therapeutics.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Harry D Bear
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP/NRG Oncology), Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine and the Massey Cancer Center, Richmond, VA, USA.
| | - Gong Tang
- NRG Oncology and the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Priya Rastogi
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP/NRG Oncology), Pittsburgh, PA, USA; University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Charles E Geyer
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP/NRG Oncology), Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine and the Massey Cancer Center, Richmond, VA, USA
| | - Qing Liu
- NRG Oncology and the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - André Robidoux
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP/NRG Oncology), Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CHUM), Montréal, QC, Canada
| | - Luis Baez-Diaz
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP/NRG Oncology), Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Minority-Based CCOP, San Juan, Puerto Rico
| | - Adam M Brufsky
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP/NRG Oncology), Pittsburgh, PA, USA; University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Magee Womens Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Rita S Mehta
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP/NRG Oncology), Pittsburgh, PA, USA; University of California at Irvine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, Chao Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, Orange, CA, USA
| | - Louis Fehrenbacher
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP/NRG Oncology), Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Kaiser Permanente Oncology Clinical Trials, Northern California, Vallejo, CA, USA
| | - James A Young
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP/NRG Oncology), Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Colorado Cancer Research Program, Colorado Springs, CO, USA
| | - Francis M Senecal
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP/NRG Oncology), Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Northwest Medical Specialties, Tacoma, WA, USA
| | - Rakesh Gaur
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP/NRG Oncology), Pittsburgh, PA, USA; CCOP, Kansas City, MO, USA
| | - Richard G Margolese
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP/NRG Oncology), Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada
| | - Paul T Adams
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP/NRG Oncology), Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Genesys Regional Medical Center, Grand Blanc, MI, USA
| | - Howard M Gross
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP/NRG Oncology), Pittsburgh, PA, USA; CCOP, Dayton, Dayton, OH, USA
| | | | - Soonmyung Paik
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP/NRG Oncology), Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Severance Biomedical Science Institute and Department of Medical Oncology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Sandra M Swain
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP/NRG Oncology), Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Washington Cancer Institute, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Eleftherios P Mamounas
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP/NRG Oncology), Pittsburgh, PA, USA; UF Health Cancer Center at Orlando Health, Orlando, FL, USA
| | - Norman Wolmark
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP/NRG Oncology), Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Allegheny Cancer Center at Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Chapman JAW, Costantino JP, Dong B, Margolese RG, Pritchard KI, Shepherd LE, Gelmon KA, Wolmark N, Pollak MN. Octreotide LAR and tamoxifen versus tamoxifen in phase III randomize early breast cancer trials: NCIC CTG MA.14 and NSABP B-29. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2015; 153:353-60. [PMID: 26276354 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-015-3547-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/10/2015] [Accepted: 08/11/2015] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
NCIC CTG MA.14 and NSABP B-29 trials examined the addition of Octreotide LAR (OCT) to 5 years of tamoxifen (TAM). Gallbladder toxicity led to B-29 discontinuation of OCT, and MA.14 OCT administration shortened to 2 years. Median follow-up was 9.8 years for 667 MA.14 patients and 6.8 years for 893 B-29 patients. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS), defined as time from randomization to time of breast cancer recurrence; second primary cancer other than squamous or basal cell skin carcinoma, cervical carcinoma in situ, or lobular breast carcinoma in situ; or death. The primary statistical test was a univariable pooled stratified log-rank test; multivariable assessment was with Cox regression. For MA.14, 97% of patients were ≥50 years; for B-29, 62%. MA.14 patients were 53% lymph node negative (LN-) while B-29 were 100% LN-; 33% of MA.14 patients received adjuvant chemotherapy, 2% concurrently, while B-29 had 53% concurrent chemotherapy. MA.14 patients were 90% hormone receptor positive; B-29, 100%. MA.14 patients experienced 5-year DFS of 80% with TAM, 76% with TAM + OCT; B-29 patients had 5-year DFS of 88% for both arms. Pooled univariable TAM + OCT to TAM hazard ratio (HR) was 0.99 (95% CI 0.81-1.20; p = 0.69): for MA.14, HR = 0.94 (0.73-1.20; p = 0.50); for B-29, HR = 1.09 (0.80-1.50; p = 0.59). Multivariable pooled HR = 0.98 (0.81-1.20; p = 0.84). Older patients (p < 0.001), with higher T stage (p < 0.001), and LN + (p < 0.001) had shorter DFS. Addition of OCT to TAM did not significantly improve DFS; gallbladder toxicity shortened the additional administration of OCT. This does not negate targeting the insulin-IGF-I receptor family with less toxic therapeutics.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Judith-Anne W Chapman
- NCIC Clinical Trials Group, Queen's University, 10 Stuart Street, Kingston, ON, K7L 3N6, Canada,
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
15
|
Margolese RG, Cecchini RS, Julian TB, Ganz PA, Costantino JP, Vallow L, Albain KS, Whitworth PW, Cianfrocca ME, Brufsky A, Gross HM, Soori GS, Hopkins JO, Fehrenbacher L, Sturtz K, Wozniak TF, Seay TE, Mamounas EP, Wolmark N. Primary results, NRG Oncology/NSABP B-35: A clinical trial of anastrozole (A) versus tamoxifen (tam) in postmenopausal patients with DCIS undergoing lumpectomy plus radiotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2015. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2015.33.18_suppl.lba500] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
LBA500 Background: The primary endpoint of NSABP B-35, a phase III trial comparing 1 mg/day anastrozole to 20 mg/day tamoxifen, each given for 5 years, was breast cancer-free interval (BCFI), defined as the time from randomization to any breast cancer (BC) event including local, regional, or distant recurrence or contralateral disease, invasive or DCIS. Methods: Postmenopausal women with ER-receptor or PgR-receptor positive (by IHC analysis) DCIS and no invasive BC who had undergone a lumpectomy with clear resection margins were randomly assigned to receive either 20 mg/day tam or 1 mg/day A (blinded) for 5 years. Stratification was by age (<60 v ≥60). Results: From 1/6/2003 to 6/15/2006, 3,104 pts were entered and randomized (1552 in groups tam and A each). As of 2/28/15, follow-up information was available on 3,083 pts for OS and on 3,077 pts for all other disease-free endpoints, with mean time of follow-up of 8.6 years. There were 198 BCFI events, 114 in the tam group and 84 in the A group (HR, 0.73; p=0.03). 10-year point estimates for BCFI were 89.2% for tam and 93.5% for A. A significant time-by-treatment interaction (p=0.02) indicated that the effect was not evident until later in the study. There was a significant interaction between treatment and age group (p=0.04); benefit of A is only in women <60 years old. As to secondary endpoints, there were 495 DFS events, 260 in the tam group and 235 in the A group (HR, 0.89; p=0.21). 10-year point estimates for DFS were 77.9% for tam and 82.7% for A. There were 186 deaths, 88 in the tam group and 98 in the A group (HR, 1.11; p=0.48). 10-year point estimates for OS were 92.1% for tam, 92.5% for A. There were 8 deaths due to breast cancer in the tam group and 5 in the A group. There were 63 cases of invasive breast cancer in the tam group and 39 in the A group (HR, 0.61; p=0.02). There was a non-significant trend for a reduction in breast second primary cancers with A (HR, 0.68; p=0.07). Conclusions: Anastrozole provided a significant improvement compared to tamoxifen for BCFI, which was seen later in the study, primarily in women <60 years. Support: CA12027, 37377, 69651, 69974; 180868, 180822, 189867 196067, 114732; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP. Clinical trial information: NCT00053898.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Richard G. Margolese
- NRG Oncology/NSABP, and The Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada
| | | | - Thomas B. Julian
- NRG Oncology/NSABP, and The Allegheny Cancer Center at Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA
| | - Patricia A. Ganz
- NRG Oncology/NSABP, and the University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA
| | | | - Laura Vallow
- NRG Oncology/NSABP, ALLIANCE/NCCRT, and Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, Jacksonville, FL
| | - Kathy S. Albain
- NRG Oncology/NSABP, SWOG, and Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL
| | - Pat W. Whitworth
- NRG Oncology/NSABP, ALLIANCE/ACOSOG, and Nashville Breast Center, Nashville, TN
| | | | - Adam Brufsky
- NRG Oncology/NSABP, and Magee Women's Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA
| | - Howard M. Gross
- NRG Oncology/NSABP, and Hem and Onc Div of Dayton Physicians LLC, Dayton, OH
| | - Gamini S. Soori
- NRG Oncology/NSABP, and Nebraska Cancer Specialists, Omaha, NE
| | - Judith O. Hopkins
- NRG Oncology/NSABP, and SCOR NCORP and the Forsyth Regional Cancer Center, Winston Salem, NC
| | - Louis Fehrenbacher
- NRG Oncology/NSABP, and Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Novato, CA
| | | | - Timothy F. Wozniak
- NRG Oncology/NSABP, and CCOP, Christiana Care Health Systems, Newark, DE
| | - Thomas E. Seay
- NRG Oncology/NSABP, and the Atlanta Regional Community Clinical Oncology Program, Atlanta, GA
| | | | - Norman Wolmark
- NRG Oncology/NSABP, and the Allegheny Cancer Center at Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Margolese RG, Cecchini RS, Julian TB, Ganz PA, Costantino JP, Vallow L, Albain KS, Whitworth PW, Cianfrocca ME, Brufsky A, Gross HM, Soori GS, Hopkins JO, Fehrenbacher L, Sturtz K, Wozniak TF, Seay TE, Mamounas EP, Wolmark N. Primary results, NRG Oncology/NSABP B-35: A clinical trial of anastrozole (A) versus tamoxifen (tam) in postmenopausal patients with DCIS undergoing lumpectomy plus radiotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2015. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2015.33.15_suppl.lba500] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Richard G. Margolese
- NRG Oncology/NSABP, and The Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada
| | | | - Thomas B. Julian
- NRG Oncology/NSABP, and The Allegheny Cancer Center at Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA
| | - Patricia A. Ganz
- NRG Oncology/NSABP, and the University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA
| | | | - Laura Vallow
- NRG Oncology/NSABP, ALLIANCE/NCCRT, and Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, Jacksonville, FL
| | - Kathy S. Albain
- NRG Oncology/NSABP, SWOG, and Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL
| | - Pat W. Whitworth
- NRG Oncology/NSABP, ALLIANCE/ACOSOG, and Nashville Breast Center, Nashville, TN
| | | | - Adam Brufsky
- NRG Oncology/NSABP, and Magee Women's Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA
| | - Howard M. Gross
- NRG Oncology/NSABP, and Hem and Onc Div of Dayton Physicians LLC, Dayton, OH
| | - Gamini S. Soori
- NRG Oncology/NSABP, and Nebraska Cancer Specialists, Omaha, NE
| | - Judith O. Hopkins
- NRG Oncology/NSABP, and SCOR NCORP and the Forsyth Regional Cancer Center, Winston Salem, NC
| | - Louis Fehrenbacher
- NRG Oncology/NSABP, and Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Novato, CA
| | | | - Timothy F. Wozniak
- NRG Oncology/NSABP, and CCOP, Christiana Care Health Systems, Newark, DE
| | - Thomas E. Seay
- NRG Oncology/NSABP, and the Atlanta Regional Community Clinical Oncology Program, Atlanta, GA
| | | | - Norman Wolmark
- NRG Oncology/NSABP, and the Allegheny Cancer Center at Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Wickerham DL, Cecchini RS, Vogel VG, Costantino JP, Cronin WM, Bevers TB, Fehrenbacher L, Pajon ER, Wade JL, Robidoux A, Margolese RG, James JM, Runowicz CD, Ganz PA, Reis SE, McCaskill-Stevens WJ, Ford LG, Jordan VC, Wolmark N. Final updated results of the NRG Oncology/NSABP Protocol P-2: Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR) in preventing breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2015. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2015.33.15_suppl.1500] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Victor G. Vogel
- Geisinger Medical Center, and the University of Pittsburgh, Danville, PA
| | | | | | | | - Louis Fehrenbacher
- NRG Oncology/NSABP, and Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Novato, CA
| | - Eduardo R. Pajon
- NRG Oncology/NSABP, and the Colorado Cancer Research Program, Denver, CO
| | | | - Andre Robidoux
- NRG Oncology/NSABP, and Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada
| | - Richard G. Margolese
- NRG Oncology/NSABP, and The Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada
| | - Joan M. James
- NRG Oncology/NSABP, and the Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Carolyn D. Runowicz
- NRG Oncology/NSABP, and the Florida International University, Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine, Miami, FL
| | - Patricia A. Ganz
- NRG Oncology/NSABP, and the University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Steven E. Reis
- NRG Oncology, and The University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA
| | | | | | - V. Craig Jordan
- NRG Oncology/NSABP, and the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Norman Wolmark
- NRG Oncology/NSABP, and the Allegheny Cancer Center at Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Ganz PA, Wilson JW, Bandos H, Robidoux A, Paterson AHG, Polikoff J, Baez-Diaz L, Brufsky AM, Fehrenbacher L, Mangalik A, Ward PJ, Provencher L, Hamm JT, Stella PJ, Carolla RL, Margolese RG, Shibata HR, Perez EA, Wolmark N. Abstract P3-12-01: Impact of treatment on quality of life (QOL) and menstrual history (MH) in the NSABP B-36: A randomized phase III trial comparing six cycles of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FEC) to four cycles of adriamycin and cyclophosphamide. Cancer Res 2015. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs14-p3-12-01] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background
NSABP B-36 compares 6 cycles of FEC-100 with 4 cycles of standard AC in pts with node-negative breast cancer. As reported separately, no significant differences between the two treatment arms were observed in the primary endpoint of disease-free survival or in the secondary endpoints of overall survival, recurrence-free, or distant recurrence-free intervals. Greater toxicity was reported in pts who received FEC compared to AC. We present here the results of the QOL and MH studies obtained prospectively in conjunction with the treatment study. We hypothesized that pts on FEC would experience greater treatment toxicity in the first 12 months of the study, and would have greater rates of amenorrhea at 18 months compared to pts on AC.
Methods
Among the 1,357 pts enrolled in the QOL study, 1,332 (675 AC, 657 FEC) submitted the baseline form and had QOL follow-up (fup) information. Pts completed: 1) the FACT-B instrument; 2) a symptom checklist; and 3) the SF-36 Vitality Scale, all at baseline, day 1 of cycle 4, and at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, and 36 months after random assignment. FACT-B Trial Outcome Index (TOI), symptom severity, and vitality scores were compared between the two treatment arms using a mixed model for repeated measures analysis with adjustment for the baseline scores, type of surgery, and hormone receptor status, examining the first 12 months and the later time points separately. Menstrual status was collected at baseline for all enrolled pts, with subsequent assessments on day 1 of cycle 4, and at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, and 36 months for pts with menstrual bleeding within 12 months prior to random assignment and not having had a hysterectomy and/or bilateral oophorectomy (1, 096 pts). Post-chemotherapy amenorrhea was defined as the lack of menstrual periods during the 12 months preceding the 18-month fup evaluation. Data from 921 pts (475 AC, 446 FEC) were available for analysis. Logistic regression, adjusted for type of surgery and hormone receptor status, was used to test for association of amenorrhea status and treatment.
Results
Both TOI and vitality scores were worse for pts on FEC compared to those on AC at 6 months (p<0.01) with no significant difference at 12 months and beyond. No significant differences in symptom severity between the two treatment arms were observed. The rates of post-chemotherapy amenorrhea were significantly different between FEC and AC (66.8% vs. 58.7%, p=0.01) with positive hormone receptor status as an independent risk factor (p=0.03).
Conclusions
Women receiving FEC had diminished QOL at 6 months after random assignment, but no difference at 12 months or later. Premenopausal women receiving FEC experienced a higher rate of post-chemotherapy amenorrhea than women receiving AC.
Support
NCI grants U10-CA-12027, -37377, -69974, -69651 and -44066-26, and Pharmacia & Upjohn Company, a subsidiary of Pfizer, Inc.
Citation Format: Patricia A Ganz, John W Wilson, Hanna Bandos, André Robidoux, Alexander HG Paterson, Johnathan Polikoff, Luis Baez-Diaz, Adam M Brufsky, Louis Fehrenbacher, Aroop Mangalik, Patrick J Ward, Louise Provencher, John T Hamm, Philip J Stella, Robert L Carolla, Richard G Margolese, Henry R Shibata, Edith A Perez, Norman Wolmark. Impact of treatment on quality of life (QOL) and menstrual history (MH) in the NSABP B-36: A randomized phase III trial comparing six cycles of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FEC) to four cycles of adriamycin and cyclophosphamide [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2014 Dec 9-13; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(9 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-12-01.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Patricia A Ganz
- 1National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP)
- 2University of California, Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center
| | - John W Wilson
- 1National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP)
- 3Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh
| | - Hanna Bandos
- 1National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP)
- 3Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh
| | - André Robidoux
- 1National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP)
- 4Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CHUM)
| | - Alexander HG Paterson
- 1National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP)
- 5Tom Baker Cancer Centre
| | - Johnathan Polikoff
- 1National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP)
- 6Kaiser Permanente – San Diego Mission
| | - Luis Baez-Diaz
- 1National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP)
- 7MBCCOP, San Juan
| | - Adam M Brufsky
- 1National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP)
- 8University of Pittsburgh, Magee Womens Hospital
| | - Louis Fehrenbacher
- 1National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP)
- 9Kaiser Permanente, Northern CA Region
| | - Aroop Mangalik
- 1National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP)
- 10MBCCOP, University of New Mexico
| | - Patrick J Ward
- 1National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP)
- 11Oncology/Hematology Care Clinical Trials
| | - Louise Provencher
- 1National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP)
- 12Centre Hospitalier Affilie Universitaire de Quebec (CHA)
| | - John T Hamm
- 1National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP)
- 13Norton Cancer Institute
| | - Philip J Stella
- 1National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP)
- 14CCOP, Michigan Cancer Research Consortium Community Clin Onc Program
| | - Robert L Carolla
- 1National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP)
- 15CCOP, Ozark Health Ventures
| | - Richard G Margolese
- 1National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP)
- 16Jewish General Hospital, McGill University
| | - Henry R Shibata
- 1National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP)
- 17Royal Victoria Hospital
| | | | - Norman Wolmark
- 1National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP)
- 20Allegheny Cancer Center at Allegheny General Hospital
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Robidoux A, Tang G, Rastogi P, Geyer CE, Azar CA, Atkins JN, Fehrenbacher L, Bear HD, Baez-Diaz L, Sarwar S, Margolese RG, Farrar WB, Brufsky AM, Shibata HR, Bandos H, Paik S, Costantino JP, Swain SM, Mamounas EP, Wolmark N. Lapatinib as a component of neoadjuvant therapy for HER2-positive operable breast cancer (NSABP protocol B-41): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2013; 14:1183-92. [PMID: 24095300 DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(13)70411-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 270] [Impact Index Per Article: 24.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND We studied the effect on tumour response to neoadjuvant therapy of the substitution of lapatinib for trastuzumab in combination with weekly paclitaxel after doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide treatment, and of the addition of lapatinib and trastuzumab combined after doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide treatment in patients with HER2-positive operable breast cancer to determine whether there would be a benefit of dual HER2 blockade in these patients. METHODS For this open-label, randomised phase 3 trial we recruited women aged 18 years or older with an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1 with operable HER2-positive breast cancer. Each received four cycles of standard doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1 every 3 weeks followed by four cycles of weekly paclitaxel (80 mg/m(2)) intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15, every 4 weeks. Concurrently with weekly paclitaxel, patients received either trastuzumab (4 mg/kg load, then 2 mg/kg intravenously) weekly until surgery, lapatinib (1250 mg orally) daily until surgery, or weekly trastuzumab plus lapatinib (750 mg orally) daily until surgery. After surgery, all patients received trastuzumab to complete 52 weeks of HER2-targeted therapy. Randomisation (ratio 1:1:1) was done centrally with stratification by clinical tumour size, clinical nodal status, hormone-receptor status, and age. The primary endpoint was the pathological complete response in the breast, and analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat population. FINDINGS Patient accrual started on July 16, 2007, and was completed on June 30, 2011; 529 women were enrolled in the trial. 519 patients had their pathological response determined. Breast pathological complete response was noted in 93 (52·5%, 95% CI 44·9-59·5) of 177 patients in the trastuzumab group, 91 (53·2%, 45·4-60·3) of 171 patients in the lapatinib group (p=0·9852); and 106 (62·0%, 54·3-68·8) of 171 patients in the combination group (p=0·095). The most common grade 3 and 4 toxic effects were neutropenia (29 [16%] patients in the trastuzumab group [grade 4 in five patients (3%), 28 [16%] in the lapatinib group [grade 4 in eight patients (5%)], and 29 [17%] in the combination group [grade 4 in nine patients (5%)]) and grade 3 diarrhoea (four [2%] patients in the trastuzumab group, 35 [20%] in the lapatinib group, and 46 [27%] in the combination group; p<0·0001). Symptomatic congestive heart failure defined as New York Heart Association Class III or IV events occurred in seven (4%) patients in the trastuzumab group, seven (4%) in the lapatinib group, and one (<1%) in the combination group; p=0·185). INTERPRETATION Substitution of lapatinib for trastuzumab in combination with chemotherapy resulted in similar high percentages of pathological complete response. Combined HER2-targeted therapy produced a numerically but insignificantly higher pathological complete response percentage than single-agent HER2-directed therapy; these findings are consistent with results from other studies. Trials are being undertaken to further assess these findings in the adjuvant setting.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- André Robidoux
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP), Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
20
|
Robidoux A, Tang G, Rastogi P, Geyer CE, Azar CA, Atkins JN, Fehrenbacher L, Bear HD, Baez-Diaz L, Kuebler JP, Margolese RG, Farrar WB, Brufsky A, Shibata HR, Bandos H, Paik S, Costantino JP, Swain SM, Mamounas EP, Wolmark N. Evaluation of lapatinib as a component of neoadjuvant therapy for HER2+ operable breast cancer: NSABP protocol B-41. J Clin Oncol 2012. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2012.30.18_suppl.lba506] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
LBA506 Background: The purposes of this trial are to determine the effect of substituting lapatinib (L) for trastuzumab (T) in combination with weekly paclitaxel (WP) following AC as well as adding L to T with WP following AC on pathologic complete response (pCR) rates. Methods: Women with HER2-positive operable breast cancer received standard AC q3wks x 4 cycles followed by WP (80 mg/m2) on days 1, 8, and 15 q28 days x 4 cycles. Concurrently with WP, patients received either T (4 mg/kg load, then 2 mg/kg) weekly until surgery, L (1250 mg) daily until surgery, or weekly T plus L (750 mg) daily until surgery. Following surgery, patients received trastuzumab to complete 52 wks of HER2-targeted therapy. The primary endpoint is pCR breast. For each of the two primary comparisons, the Fisher’s exact test was used to test the equality of pCR rates. A Hochberg-type step-up procedure was applied to address multiple testings and to control the family-wise error rate at 0.05. Results: 51% were clinically node positive and 63% had HR+ tumors. pCR assessments were available from 519 of 529 patients. pCR percentage was 52.5% for AC→WP+T, 53.2% (p=0.9) for AC→WP+L, and 62% (p=0.075) for AC→WP+TL. pCR percentages in the HR+ subset were 46.7%, 48% (p=0.85), and 55.6% (p=0.18), respectively, and were 65.5%, 60.6% (p=0.57), and 73% (p=0.37) in the HR- cohort. The corresponding pCR breast and nodes percentages were 49.1%, 47.4% (p=0.74), and 60.4% (p=0.04). Grade 3/4 toxicities include diarrhea in 2%, 20%, 27% (p<0.001), and symptomatic Gr 3/4 left ventricular systolic dysfunction in 4%, 4%, and 2% (p=0.49). Conclusions: Substitution of lapatinib for trastuzumab in combination with the chemotherapy program employed in this study resulted in similar high percentages of pCR in both HR+ and HR- cohorts. Combined HER2-targeted therapy produced a numerically higher pCR percentage than single agent HER2-directed therapy, but the difference was not statistically significant. Central review of HER2 and ER is being conducted to determine if subsets benefiting from the combined HER2-targeted therapy can be identified. Funding: GlaxoSmithKline.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andre Robidoux
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project and Centre Hospitalier de l'Universite de Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - Gong Tang
- NSABP Biostatistical Center and University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, Department of Biostatistics, Pittsburgh, PA
| | - Priya Rastogi
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project and University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA
| | - Charles E. Geyer
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project and University of Texas, Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX
| | - Catherine A. Azar
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project and Kaiser Permanente, Denver, CO
| | - James Norman Atkins
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project and SCCC-CCOP, Goldboro, NC
| | - Louis Fehrenbacher
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project and Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Vallejo, CA
| | - Harry Douglas Bear
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project and Virginia Commonwealth University, Masey Cancer Center, Richmond, VA
| | - Luis Baez-Diaz
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project and CCOP San Juan, San Juan, PR
| | - J. Phillip Kuebler
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project and CCOP Columbus, Columbus, OH
| | - Richard G. Margolese
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project and Segal Cancer Centre, Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - William Blair Farrar
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project and Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital-Richard J. Solous Research Institute at Ohio State University, Columbus, OH
| | - Adam Brufsky
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project and University of Pittsburgh, Magee-Womens Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA
| | - Henry R. Shibata
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project and McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - Hanna Bandos
- NSABP Biostatistical Center, University of Pittsburgh, Graduate School of Public Health, Department of Biostatistics, Pittsburgh, PA
| | - Soonmyung Paik
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, Pittsburgh, PA
| | - Joseph P. Costantino
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Biostatistical Center and University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, Department of Biostatistics, Pittsburgh, PA
| | - Sandra M. Swain
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project and Washington Cancer Institute, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC
| | | | - Norman Wolmark
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project and Allegheny Cancer Center at Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Robidoux A, Tang G, Rastogi P, Geyer CE, Azar CA, Atkins JN, Fehrenbacher L, Bear HD, Baez-Diaz L, Kuebler JP, Margolese RG, Farrar WB, Brufsky A, Shibata HR, Bandos H, Paik S, Costantino JP, Swain SM, Mamounas EP, Wolmark N. Evaluation of lapatinib as a component of neoadjuvant therapy for HER2+ operable breast cancer: NSABP protocol B-41. J Clin Oncol 2012. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2012.30.15_suppl.lba506] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
LBA506 The full, final text of this abstract will be available at abstract.asco.org at 12:01 AM (EDT) on Sunday, June 3, 2012, and in the Annual Meeting Proceedings online supplement to the June 20, 2012, issue of Journal of Clinical Oncology. Onsite at the Meeting, this abstract will be printed in the Sunday edition of ASCO Daily News.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andre Robidoux
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project and Centre Hospitalier de l'Universite de Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - Gong Tang
- NSABP Biostatistical Center and University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, Department of Biostatistics, Pittsburgh, PA
| | - Priya Rastogi
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project and University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA
| | - Charles E. Geyer
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project and University of Texas, Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX
| | - Catherine A. Azar
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project and Kaiser Permanente, Denver, CO
| | - James Norman Atkins
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project and SCCC-CCOP, Goldboro, NC
| | - Louis Fehrenbacher
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project and Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Vallejo, CA
| | - Harry Douglas Bear
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project and Virginia Commonwealth University, Masey Cancer Center, Richmond, VA
| | - Luis Baez-Diaz
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project and CCOP San Juan, San Juan, PR
| | - J. Phillip Kuebler
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project and CCOP Columbus, Columbus, OH
| | - Richard G. Margolese
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project and Segal Cancer Centre, Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - William Blair Farrar
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project and Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital-Richard J. Solous Research Institute at Ohio State University, Columbus, OH
| | - Adam Brufsky
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project and University of Pittsburgh, Magee-Womens Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA
| | - Henry R. Shibata
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project and McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - Hanna Bandos
- NSABP Biostatistical Center, University of Pittsburgh, Graduate School of Public Health, Department of Biostatistics, Pittsburgh, PA
| | - Soonmyung Paik
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, Pittsburgh, PA
| | - Joseph P. Costantino
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Biostatistical Center and University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, Department of Biostatistics, Pittsburgh, PA
| | - Sandra M. Swain
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project and Washington Cancer Institute, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC
| | | | - Norman Wolmark
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project and Allegheny Cancer Center at Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Chapman JAW, Costantino JP, Dong B, Margolese RG, Pritchard KI, Shepherd LE, Gelmon KA, Wolmark N, Pollak MN. Randomized trials of adjuvant tamoxifen versus tamoxifen and octreotide LAR in early-stage breast cancer: NCIC CTG MA.14 and NSABP B-29. J Clin Oncol 2012. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2012.30.15_suppl.538] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
538 Background: MA.14 and B-29 examined whether the addition of Octreotide (SMS 201-995 pa LAR; OCT) to 5 years adjuvant tamoxifen (TAM) prolonged disease-free survival (DFS). Excessive gallbladder (GB) toxicity in B-29 led to DMC recommended stopping of OCT and MA.14 shortening of OCT to 2 years. Data for the 2 trials were pooled. Methods: Median follow-up of the 667 MA.14 patients was 9.8 years, and of the 893 B-29 patients, 6.8 years for ITT analysis. The primary endpoint was DFS, defined as time from randomization to time of (local, regional or distant) breast cancer recurrence; any second primary cancer other than squamous or basal cell carcinoma of the skin, carcinoma in situ of the cervix, or lobular carcinoma in situ of the breast; or death. The primary test statistic was a pooled stratified log-rank test, with stratification within each trial by applicant stratification factors. Multivariate assessment was with Cox regression. Results: MA.14 patients were all postmenopausal with 97% ≥50 years of age while 62% of B-29 women were ≥50. 53% of MA.14 patients were lymph node negative (LN-), while all of B-29 patients were LN-. 33% of MA.14 patients received adjuvant chemotherapy, 2% concurrently, while 53% of B-29 received concurrent chemotherapy. 90% of MA.14 patients were hormone receptor positive while 100% of B-29 were positive. MA.14 patients experienced a 5 year DFS rate of 80% on TAM and 76% on TAM+OCT, while B-29 patients had a 5 year rate of 88% for both arms. The pooled 5 year rates were 85% and 83%. Pooled univariate stratified Cox HR of TAM+OCT to TAM was 0.99 (95% CI 0.81-1.20; p-value= 0.69). The HR for MA.14 was 0.93 (0.72-1.19; p= 0.50) and for B-29 was 1.09 (0.80-1.50; p=0.59). Multivariate pooled HR of TAM+OCT to TAM was 0.98 (0.81-1.20; p=0.84). Patients who were older (p=0.0006), and had higher T stage (p<0.0001) with LN+ (p=0.0008) had shorter DFS. Conclusions: OCT did not significantly improve DFS for women who were a broad spectrum of patients: pre- or post-menopausal, LN- or LN+, and received sequential, concurrent or no adjuvant chemotherapy. Neither study had the intended duration of OCT due to GB toxicity; thus, the results do not negate targeting the insulin - IGF-I receptor family.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Joseph P. Costantino
- Biostatistical Center, National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project and Department of Biostatistics, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, Pittsburgh, PA
| | - Bin Dong
- NCIC Clinical Trials Group, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada
| | | | | | - Lois E. Shepherd
- NCIC Clinical Trials Group, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada
| | | | - Norman Wolmark
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project and Allegheny Cancer Center at Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA
| | | |
Collapse
|
23
|
Bear HD, Tang G, Rastogi P, Geyer CE, Robidoux A, Atkins JN, Baez-Diaz L, Brufsky AM, Mehta RS, Fehrenbacher L, Young JA, Senecal FM, Gaur R, Margolese RG, Adams PT, Gross HM, Costantino JP, Swain SM, Mamounas EP, Wolmark N. Bevacizumab added to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2012; 366:310-20. [PMID: 22276821 PMCID: PMC3401076 DOI: 10.1056/nejmoa1111097] [Citation(s) in RCA: 370] [Impact Index Per Article: 30.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/08/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Bevacizumab and the antimetabolites capecitabine and gemcitabine have been shown to improve outcomes when added to taxanes in patients with metastatic breast cancer. The primary aims of this trial were to determine whether the addition of capecitabine or gemcitabine to neoadjuvant chemotherapy with docetaxel, followed by doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide, would increase the rates of pathological complete response in the breast in women with operable, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer and whether adding bevacizumab to these chemotherapy regimens would increase the rates of pathological complete response. METHODS We randomly assigned 1206 patients to receive neoadjuvant therapy consisting of docetaxel (100 mg per square meter of body-surface area on day 1), docetaxel (75 mg per square meter on day 1) plus capecitabine (825 mg per square meter twice a day on days 1 to 14), or docetaxel (75 mg per square meter on day 1) plus gemcitabine (1000 mg per square meter on days 1 and 8) for four cycles, with all regimens followed by treatment with doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide for four cycles. Patients were also randomly assigned to receive or not to receive bevacizumab (15 mg per kilogram of body weight) for the first six cycles of chemotherapy. RESULTS The addition of capecitabine or gemcitabine to docetaxel therapy, as compared with docetaxel therapy alone, did not significantly increase the rate of pathological complete response (29.7% and 31.8%, respectively, vs. 32.7%; P=0.69). Both capecitabine and gemcitabine were associated with increased toxic effects--specifically, the hand-foot syndrome, mucositis, and neutropenia. The addition of bevacizumab significantly increased the rate of pathological complete response (28.2% without bevacizumab vs. 34.5% with bevacizumab, P=0.02). The effect of bevacizumab on the rate of pathological complete response was not the same in the hormone-receptor-positive and hormone-receptor-negative subgroups. The addition of bevacizumab increased the rates of hypertension, left ventricular systolic dysfunction, the hand-foot syndrome, and mucositis. CONCLUSIONS The addition of bevacizumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy significantly increased the rate of pathological complete response, which was the primary end point of this study. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00408408.).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Harry D Bear
- Medical College of Virginia School of Medicine and the Massey Cancer Center, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 23298-0011, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
24
|
Wapnir IL, Dignam JJ, Fisher B, Mamounas EP, Anderson SJ, Julian TB, Land SR, Margolese RG, Swain SM, Costantino JP, Wolmark N. Long-term outcomes of invasive ipsilateral breast tumor recurrences after lumpectomy in NSABP B-17 and B-24 randomized clinical trials for DCIS. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011; 103:478-88. [PMID: 21398619 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djr027] [Citation(s) in RCA: 516] [Impact Index Per Article: 39.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/13/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) is the most common failure event after lumpectomy for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). We evaluated invasive IBTR (I-IBTR) and its influence on survival among participants in two National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) randomized trials for DCIS. METHODS In the NSABP B-17 trial (accrual period: October 1, 1985, to December 31, 1990), patients with localized DCIS were randomly assigned to the lumpectomy only (LO, n = 403) group or to the lumpectomy followed by radiotherapy (LRT, n = 410) group. In the NSABP B-24 double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial (accrual period: May 9, 1991, to April 13, 1994), all accrued patients were randomly assigned to LRT+ placebo, (n=900) or LRT + tamoxifen (LRT + TAM, n = 899). Endpoints included I-IBTR, DCIS-IBTR, contralateral breast cancers (CBC), overall and breast cancer-specific survival, and survival after I-IBTR. Median follow-up was 207 months for the B-17 trial (N = 813 patients) and 163 months for the B-24 trial (N = 1799 patients). RESULTS Of 490 IBTR events, 263 (53.7%) were invasive. Radiation reduced I-IBTR by 52% in the LRT group compared with LO (B-17, hazard ratio [HR] of risk of I-IBTR = 0.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.33 to 0.69, P < .001). LRT + TAM reduced I-IBTR by 32% compared with LRT + placebo (B-24, HR of risk of I-IBTR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.49 to 0.95, P = .025). The 15-year cumulative incidence of I-IBTR was 19.4% for LO, 8.9% for LRT (B-17), 10.0% for LRT + placebo (B-24), and 8.5% for LRT + TAM. The 15-year cumulative incidence of all contralateral breast cancers was 10.3% for LO, 10.2% for LRT (B-17), 10.8% for LRT + placebo (B-24), and 7.3% for LRT + TAM. I-IBTR was associated with increased mortality risk (HR of death = 1.75, 95% CI = 1.45 to 2.96, P < .001), whereas recurrence of DCIS was not. Twenty-two of 39 deaths after I-IBTR were attributed to breast cancer. Among all patients (with or without I-IBTR), the 15-year cumulative incidence of breast cancer death was 3.1% for LO, 4.7% for LRT (B-17), 2.7% for LRT + placebo (B-24), and 2.3% for LRT + TAM. CONCLUSIONS Although I-IBTR increased the risk for breast cancer-related death, radiation therapy and tamoxifen reduced I-IBTR, and long-term prognosis remained excellent after breast-conserving surgery for DCIS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Irene L Wapnir
- Department of Surgery; 300 Pasteur Dr H3625, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305-5655.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
25
|
Vogel VG, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, Cronin WM, Cecchini RS, Atkins JN, Bevers TB, Fehrenbacher L, Pajon ER, Wade JL, Robidoux A, Margolese RG, James J, Runowicz CD, Ganz PA, Reis SE, McCaskill-Stevens W, Ford LG, Jordan VC, Wolmark N. Update of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR) P-2 Trial: Preventing breast cancer. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 2010; 3:696-706. [PMID: 20404000 DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.capr-10-0076] [Citation(s) in RCA: 424] [Impact Index Per Article: 30.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/05/2023]
Abstract
The selective estrogen-receptor modulator (SERM) tamoxifen became the first U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved agent for reducing breast cancer risk but did not gain wide acceptance for prevention, largely because it increased endometrial cancer and thromboembolic events. The FDA approved the SERM raloxifene for breast cancer risk reduction following its demonstrated effectiveness in preventing invasive breast cancer in the Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR). Raloxifene caused less toxicity (versus tamoxifen), including reduced thromboembolic events and endometrial cancer. In this report, we present an updated analysis with an 81-month median follow-up. STAR women were randomly assigned to receive either tamoxifen (20 mg/d) or raloxifene (60 mg/d) for 5 years. The risk ratio (RR; raloxifene:tamoxifen) for invasive breast cancer was 1.24 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-1.47) and for noninvasive disease, 1.22 (95% CI, 0.95-1.59). Compared with initial results, the RRs widened for invasive and narrowed for noninvasive breast cancer. Toxicity RRs (raloxifene:tamoxifen) were 0.55 (95% CI, 0.36-0.83; P = 0.003) for endometrial cancer (this difference was not significant in the initial results), 0.19 (95% CI, 0.12-0.29) for uterine hyperplasia, and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.60-0.93) for thromboembolic events. There were no significant mortality differences. Long-term raloxifene retained 76% of the effectiveness of tamoxifen in preventing invasive disease and grew closer over time to tamoxifen in preventing noninvasive disease, with far less toxicity (e.g., highly significantly less endometrial cancer). These results have important public health implications and clarify that both raloxifene and tamoxifen are good preventive choices for postmenopausal women with elevated risk for breast cancer.
Collapse
|
26
|
|
27
|
Rastogi P, Anderson SJ, Bear HD, Geyer CE, Kahlenberg MS, Robidoux A, Margolese RG, Hoehn JL, Vogel VG, Dakhil SR, Tamkus D, King KM, Pajon ER, Wright MJ, Robert J, Paik S, Mamounas EP, Wolmark N. Preoperative chemotherapy: updates of National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocols B-18 and B-27. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26:778-85. [PMID: 18258986 DOI: 10.1200/jco.2007.15.0235] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1241] [Impact Index Per Article: 77.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/19/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) Protocol B-18 was designed to determine whether four cycles of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) administered preoperatively improved breast cancer disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with AC administered postoperatively. Protocol B-27 was designed to determine the effect of adding docetaxel (T) to preoperative AC on tumor response rates, DFS, and OS. PATIENTS AND METHODS Analyses were limited to eligible patients. In B-18, 751 patients were assigned to receive preoperative AC, and 742 patients were assigned to receive postoperative AC. In B-27, 784 patients were assigned to receive preoperative AC followed by surgery, 783 patients were assigned to AC followed by T and surgery, and 777 patients were assigned to AC followed by surgery and then T. RESULTS Results from B-18 show no statistically significant differences in DFS and OS between the two groups. However, there were trends in favor of preoperative chemotherapy for DFS and OS in women less than 50 years old (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.85, P = .09 for DFS; HR = 0.81, P = .06 for OS). DFS conditional on being event free for 5 years also demonstrated a strong trend in favor of the preoperative group (HR = 0.81, P = .053). Protocol B-27 results demonstrated that the addition of T to AC did not significantly impact DFS or OS. Preoperative T added to AC significantly increased the proportion of patients having pathologic complete responses (pCRs) compared with preoperative AC alone (26% v 13%, respectively; P < .0001). In both studies, patients who achieved a pCR continue to have significantly superior DFS and OS outcomes compared with patients who did not. CONCLUSION B-18 and B-27 demonstrate that preoperative therapy is equivalent to adjuvant therapy. B-27 also showed that the addition of preoperative taxanes to AC improves response.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Priya Rastogi
- University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute/Magee Womens Hospital, 300 Halket St, Room 3524, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
28
|
Vogel VG, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, Cronin WM, Cecchini RS, Atkins JN, Bevers TB, Fehrenbacher L, Pajon ER, Wade JL, Robidoux A, Margolese RG, James J, Lippman SM, Runowicz CD, Ganz PA, Reis SE, McCaskill-Stevens W, Ford LG, Jordan VC, Wolmark N. Effects of tamoxifen vs raloxifene on the risk of developing invasive breast cancer and other disease outcomes: the NSABP Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR) P-2 trial. JAMA 2006; 295:2727-41. [PMID: 16754727 DOI: 10.1001/jama.295.23.joc60074] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1091] [Impact Index Per Article: 60.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/14/2022]
Abstract
CONTEXT Tamoxifen is approved for the reduction of breast cancer risk, and raloxifene has demonstrated a reduced risk of breast cancer in trials of older women with osteoporosis. OBJECTIVE To compare the relative effects and safety of raloxifene and tamoxifen on the risk of developing invasive breast cancer and other disease outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS The National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene trial, a prospective, double-blind, randomized clinical trial conducted beginning July 1, 1999, in nearly 200 clinical centers throughout North America, with final analysis initiated after at least 327 incident invasive breast cancers were diagnosed. Patients were 19,747 postmenopausal women of mean age 58.5 years with increased 5-year breast cancer risk (mean risk, 4.03% [SD, 2.17%]). Data reported are based on a cutoff date of December 31, 2005. INTERVENTION Oral tamoxifen (20 mg/d) or raloxifene (60 mg/d) over 5 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Incidence of invasive breast cancer, uterine cancer, noninvasive breast cancer, bone fractures, thromboembolic events. RESULTS There were 163 cases of invasive breast cancer in women assigned to tamoxifen and 168 in those assigned to raloxifene (incidence, 4.30 per 1000 vs 4.41 per 1000; risk ratio [RR], 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82-1.28). There were fewer cases of noninvasive breast cancer in the tamoxifen group (57 cases) than in the raloxifene group (80 cases) (incidence, 1.51 vs 2.11 per 1000; RR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.98-2.00). There were 36 cases of uterine cancer with tamoxifen and 23 with raloxifene (RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.35-1.08). No differences were found for other invasive cancer sites, for ischemic heart disease events, or for stroke. Thromboembolic events occurred less often in the raloxifene group (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.54-0.91). The number of osteoporotic fractures in the groups was similar. There were fewer cataracts (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68-0.92) and cataract surgeries (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.68-0.99) in the women taking raloxifene. There was no difference in the total number of deaths (101 vs 96 for tamoxifen vs raloxifene) or in causes of death. CONCLUSIONS Raloxifene is as effective as tamoxifen in reducing the risk of invasive breast cancer and has a lower risk of thromboembolic events and cataracts but a nonstatistically significant higher risk of noninvasive breast cancer. The risk of other cancers, fractures, ischemic heart disease, and stroke is similar for both drugs. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00003906.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Victor G Vogel
- Magee-Womens Hospital, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa 15213-3221, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
29
|
Fisher B, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, Cecchini RS, Cronin WM, Robidoux A, Bevers TB, Kavanah MT, Atkins JN, Margolese RG, Runowicz CD, James JM, Ford LG, Wolmark N. Tamoxifen for the prevention of breast cancer: current status of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005; 97:1652-62. [PMID: 16288118 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/dji372] [Citation(s) in RCA: 884] [Impact Index Per Article: 46.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Initial findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Breast Cancer Prevention Trial (P-1) demonstrated that tamoxifen reduced the risk of estrogen receptor-positive tumors and osteoporotic fractures in women at increased risk for breast cancer. Side effects of varying clinical significance were observed. The trial was unblinded because of the positive results, and follow-up continued. This report updates our initial findings. METHODS Women (n = 13,388) were randomly assigned to receive placebo or tamoxifen for 5 years. Rates of breast cancer and other events were compared by the use of risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Estimates of the net benefit from 5 years of tamoxifen therapy were compared by age, race, and categories of predicted breast cancer risk. Statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS After 7 years of follow-up, the cumulative rate of invasive breast cancer was reduced from 42.5 per 1000 women in the placebo group to 24.8 per 1000 women in the tamoxifen group (RR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.46 to 0.70) and the cumulative rate of noninvasive breast cancer was reduced from 15.8 per 1000 women in the placebo group to 10.2 per 1000 women in the tamoxifen group (RR = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.45 to 0.89). These reductions were similar to those seen in the initial report. Tamoxifen led to a 32% reduction in osteoporotic fractures (RR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.51 to 0.92). Relative risks of stroke, deep-vein thrombosis, and cataracts (which increased with tamoxifen) and of ischemic heart disease and death (which were not changed with tamoxifen) were also similar to those initially reported. Risks of pulmonary embolism were approximately 11% lower than in the original report, and risks of endometrial cancer were about 29% higher, but these differences were not statistically significant. The net benefit achieved with tamoxifen varied according to age, race, and level of breast cancer risk. CONCLUSIONS Despite the potential bias caused by the unblinding of the P-1 trial, the magnitudes of all beneficial and undesirable treatment effects of tamoxifen were similar to those initially reported, with notable reductions in breast cancer and increased risks of thromboembolic events and endometrial cancer. Readily identifiable subsets of individuals comprising 2.5 million women could derive a net benefit from the drug.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bernard Fisher
- Operations Center, National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, Pittsburgh, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
30
|
Normand J, Lasry JC, Margolese RG, Perry JC, Fleiszer D. [Marital communication and depressive symptoms in couples in which the woman has cancer of the breast]. Bull Cancer 2004; 91:193-9. [PMID: 15047460] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 04/29/2023]
Abstract
If doctor-patient communication is a frequent subject of research, couples communication where one partner has cancer is quite recent. Some studies deal with couples communication, but from an anecdotic perspective, without any operational measure. The aim of this paper is to study couples' communication frequency and link it to depressive symptomatology. Marital communication was assessed with three scales: frequency of general communication, frequency of communication about cancer and satisfaction with communication. About one month following surgery, 120 breast cancer patients were interviewed; only 11 partners (9%) refused to be interviewed. Results show less communication is associated with higher depressive level. Patients and partners with a passable level of communication, particularly about cancer, are clinically at risk for depression. Communicating frequently about cancer in the couple seems thus associated with a positive effect, i.e. a depressive level found in the general population. Direction of causality between frequency of marital communication and depressive symptomatology cannot be established from this study.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Julie Normand
- Hôpital général juif, département de psychiatrie et Université de Montréal
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
31
|
Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J, Margolese RG, Deutsch M, Fisher ER, Jeong JH, Wolmark N. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2002; 347:1233-41. [PMID: 12393820 DOI: 10.1056/nejmoa022152] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4063] [Impact Index Per Article: 184.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND In 1976, we initiated a randomized trial to determine whether lumpectomy with or without radiation therapy was as effective as total mastectomy for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. METHODS A total of 1851 women for whom follow-up data were available and nodal status was known underwent randomly assigned treatment consisting of total mastectomy, lumpectomy alone, or lumpectomy and breast irradiation. Kaplan-Meier and cumulative-incidence estimates of the outcome were obtained. RESULTS The cumulative incidence of recurrent tumor in the ipsilateral breast was 14.3 percent in the women who underwent lumpectomy and breast irradiation, as compared with 39.2 percent in the women who underwent lumpectomy without irradiation (P<0.001). No significant differences were observed among the three groups of women with respect to disease-free survival, distant-disease-free survival, or overall survival. The hazard ratio for death among the women who underwent lumpectomy alone, as compared with those who underwent total mastectomy, was 1.05 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.90 to 1.23; P=0.51). The hazard ratio for death among the women who underwent lumpectomy followed by breast irradiation, as compared with those who underwent total mastectomy, was 0.97 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.83 to 1.14; P=0.74). Among the lumpectomy-treated women whose surgical specimens had tumor-free margins, the hazard ratio for death among the women who underwent postoperative breast irradiation, as compared with those who did not, was 0.91 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.77 to 1.06; P=0.23). Radiation therapy was associated with a marginally significant decrease in deaths due to breast cancer. This decrease was partially offset by an increase in deaths from other causes. CONCLUSIONS Lumpectomy followed by breast irradiation continues to be appropriate therapy for women with breast cancer, provided that the margins of resected specimens are free of tumor and an acceptable cosmetic result can be obtained.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bernard Fisher
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, Pittsburgh, PA 15212-5234, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
32
|
Fisher B, Bryant J, Dignam JJ, Wickerham DL, Mamounas EP, Fisher ER, Margolese RG, Nesbitt L, Paik S, Pisansky TM, Wolmark N. Tamoxifen, radiation therapy, or both for prevention of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence after lumpectomy in women with invasive breast cancers of one centimeter or less. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20:4141-9. [PMID: 12377957 DOI: 10.1200/jco.2002.11.101] [Citation(s) in RCA: 437] [Impact Index Per Article: 19.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/27/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE This trial was prompted by uncertainty about the need for breast irradiation after lumpectomy in node-negative women with invasive breast cancers of </= 1 cm, by speculation that tamoxifen (TAM) might be as or more effective than radiation therapy (XRT) in reducing the rate of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) in such women, and by the thesis that both modalities might be more effective than either alone. PATIENTS AND METHODS After lumpectomy, 1,009 women were randomly assigned to TAM (n = 336), XRT and placebo (n = 336), or XRT and TAM (n = 337). Rates of IBTR, distant recurrence, and contralateral breast cancer (CBC) were among the end points for analysis. Cumulative incidence of IBTR and of CBC was computed accounting for competing risks. Results with two-sided P values of.05 or less were statistically significant. RESULTS XRT and placebo resulted in a 49% lower hazard rate of IBTR than did TAM alone; XRT and TAM resulted in a 63% lower rate than did XRT and placebo. When compared with TAM alone, XRT plus TAM resulted in an 81% reduction in hazard rate of IBTR. Cumulative incidence of IBTR through 8 years was 16.5% with TAM, 9.3% with XRT and placebo, and 2.8% with XRT and TAM. XRT reduced IBTR below the level achieved with TAM alone, regardless of estrogen receptor (ER) status. Distant treatment failures were infrequent and not significantly different among the groups (P =.28). When TAM-treated women were compared with those who received XRT and placebo, there was a significant reduction in CBC (hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.21 to 0.95; P =.039). Survival in the three groups was 93%, 94%, and 93%, respectively (P =.93). CONCLUSION In women with tumors </= 1 cm, IBTR occurs with enough frequency after lumpectomy to justify considering XRT, regardless of tumor ER status, and TAM plus XRT when tumors are ER positive.
Collapse
MESH Headings
- Aged
- Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal/therapeutic use
- Breast Neoplasms/drug therapy
- Breast Neoplasms/pathology
- Breast Neoplasms/radiotherapy
- Breast Neoplasms/surgery
- Carcinoma, Ductal, Breast/drug therapy
- Carcinoma, Ductal, Breast/pathology
- Carcinoma, Ductal, Breast/radiotherapy
- Carcinoma, Ductal, Breast/surgery
- Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating/drug therapy
- Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating/pathology
- Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating/radiotherapy
- Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating/surgery
- Combined Modality Therapy
- Female
- Humans
- Mastectomy, Segmental
- Middle Aged
- Neoplasm Recurrence, Local/epidemiology
- Neoplasm Recurrence, Local/prevention & control
- Proportional Hazards Models
- Radiotherapy Dosage
- Receptors, Estrogen
- Receptors, Progesterone
- Survival Analysis
- Tamoxifen/therapeutic use
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bernard Fisher
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Biostatistical Center, Division of Pathology, and Breast Committee, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
33
|
Fisher B, Anderson S, Tan-Chiu E, Wolmark N, Wickerham DL, Fisher ER, Dimitrov NV, Atkins JN, Abramson N, Merajver S, Romond EH, Kardinal CG, Shibata HR, Margolese RG, Farrar WB. Tamoxifen and chemotherapy for axillary node-negative, estrogen receptor-negative breast cancer: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-23. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19:931-42. [PMID: 11181655 DOI: 10.1200/jco.2001.19.4.931] [Citation(s) in RCA: 177] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Uncertainty about the relative worth of doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC) and cyclophosphamide/methotrexate/fluorouracil (CMF), as well as doubt about the propriety of giving tamoxifen (TAM) with chemotherapy to patients with estrogen receptor-negative tumors and negative axillary nodes, prompted the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project to initiate the B-23 study. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients (n = 2,008) were randomly assigned to CMF plus placebo, CMF plus TAM, AC plus placebo, or AC plus TAM. Six cycles of CMF were given for 6 months; four cycles of AC were administered for 63 days. TAM was given daily for 5 years. Relapse-free survival (RFS), event-free survival (EFS), and survival (S) were determined by using life-table estimates. Tests for heterogeneity of outcome used log-rank statistics and Cox proportional hazards models to detect differences across all groups and according to chemotherapy and hormonal therapy status. RESULTS No significant difference in RFS, EFS, or S was observed among the four groups through 5 years (P =.96,.8, and.8, respectively), for those aged < or = 49 years (P =.97,.5, and.9, respectively), or for those aged > or = 50 years (P =.7,.6, and.6, respectively). A comparison between all CMF- and all AC-treated patients demonstrated no significant differences in RFS (87% at 5 years in both groups, P =.9), EFS (83% and 82%, P =.6), or S (89% and 90%, P =.4). There were no significant differences in RFS, EFS, or S between CMF and AC in patients aged < or = 49 or > or = 50 years. No significant difference in any outcome was observed when chemotherapy-treated patients who received placebo were compared with those given TAM. RFS in both groups was 87% (P =.6), 87% in patients aged < or = 49 (P =.9), and 88% and 87%, respectively (P =.4), in those aged > or = 50 years. CONCLUSION There was no significant difference in the outcome of patients who received AC or CMF. TAM with either regimen resulted in no significant advantage over that achieved from chemotherapy alone.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- B Fisher
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, Pittsburgh, PA 15212-5234, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
34
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND Less than two decades ago, early discharge of mastectomy patients was found to be possible while the drains were still in place, without noticeable consequences for patients. Most reported studies focused on surgical complication rates and found no significant evidence of it. The objective of the present study was to compare inpatient to same-day discharge surgery for breast cancer, on unselected patients. METHODS All interviewed patients (n = 90) had routine level I and II axillary lymph node dissection under general anesthesia, combined with breast surgery for most of them. The outpatient group comprised 55 patients and the inpatient group 35. Psychological distress was assessed, as well as pain, anxiety, quality of life, emotional adjustment, recovery, social relations, stressful life events, and so on. RESULTS The sociodemographic characteristics of both surgery groups was quite similar, except that time from surgery to interview was about 1 year longer for inpatients. Outpatients and hospitalized patients report similar levels of pain, fear, anxiety, health assessment, and quality of life. Ambulatory patients manifest a significantly better emotional adjustment and fewer psychological distress symptoms. Inpatients reported that it took an average of 27 days to feel that they had recovered from surgery, about 10 days longer than outpatients. Inpatient return to usual activities was also about 11 days later. CONCLUSIONS Same-day discharge patients are not at a disadvantage compared to hospitalized patients; i.e., they report faster recovery and better psychological adjustment. Outpatient surgery may thus foster patient emotional well-being better than routine hospitalization.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- R G Margolese
- Department of Surgery, McGill University, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Québec, Canada.
| | | |
Collapse
|
35
|
Abstract
The 1992 NIH Consensus Development Conference reported that "breast conservation treatment is an appropriate method of primary therapy for the majority of women with stage I and II breast cancer and is preferable because it provides survival equivalent to total mastectomy and axillary dissection while preserving the breast." This conclusion has been solidly confirmed by recent updates of all of the prospective clinical trials performed. The uneven utilization of this BCS indicates the personal discomfort of some surgeons in recommending it or in communicating their recommendations to patients. The appropriate candidate for mastectomy is the patient in whom it is evident that BCS will not control the tumor. This conclusion may be drawn after one or even two attempts at revision have shown more extensive microscopic disease. The experience with preoperative chemotherapy programs such as NSABP Protocol B-18 shows that even for larger tumors primary excision or excision after preoperative chemotherapy provides reasonable rates of local control with no evidence of diminished distant control or survival. Very large tumors, often accompanied by other grave signs, are best treated by primary chemotherapy, because they are essentially not stage I or stage II disease. Although recognizing that better long-term cure rates are a function of the treatment of micrometastases with adjuvant chemotherapy, surgeons should remember the need to balance cosmetic factors with techniques required for good local control. Cosmetic factors are always important, but the primary concern is adequate removal of the primary tumor with pathologically negative margins. The best way to prevent the need for a salvage mastectomy following local recurrence is to obtain adequate control at the initial procedure, but this does not mean that aggressive local surgery is needed, and it certainly does not mean that a primary mastectomy is needed except in unusual cases.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- R G Margolese
- Department of Surgery, McGill University Faculty of Medicine, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Fisher B, Dignam J, Wolmark N, Wickerham DL, Fisher ER, Mamounas E, Smith R, Begovic M, Dimitrov NV, Margolese RG, Kardinal CG, Kavanah MT, Fehrenbacher L, Oishi RH. Tamoxifen in treatment of intraductal breast cancer: National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-24 randomised controlled trial. Lancet 1999; 353:1993-2000. [PMID: 10376613 DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(99)05036-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 656] [Impact Index Per Article: 26.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/31/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND We have shown previously that lumpectomy with radiation therapy was more effective than lumpectomy alone for the treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). We did a double-blind randomised controlled trial to find out whether lumpectomy, radiation therapy, and tamoxifen was of more benefit than lumpectomy and radiation therapy alone for DCIS. METHODS 1804 women with DCIS, including those whose resected sample margins were involved with tumour, were randomly assigned lumpectomy, radiation therapy (50 Gy), and placebo (n=902), or lumpectomy, radiation therapy, and tamoxifen (20 mg daily for 5 years, n=902). Median follow-up was 74 months (range 57-93). We compared annual event rates and cumulative probability of invasive or non-invasive ipsilateral and contralateral tumours over 5 years. FINDINGS Women in the tamoxifen group had fewer breast-cancer events at 5 years than did those on placebo (8.2 vs 13.4%, p=0.0009). The cumulative incidence of all invasive breast-cancer events in the tamoxifen group was 4.1% at 5 years: 2.1% in the ipsilateral breast, 1.8% in the contralateral breast, and 0.2% at regional or distant sites. The risk of ipsilateral-breast cancer was lower in the tamoxifen group even when sample margins contained tumour and when DCIS was associated with comedonecrosis. INTERPRETATION The combination of lumpectomy, radiation therapy, and tamoxifen was effective in the prevention of invasive cancer.
Collapse
MESH Headings
- Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal/adverse effects
- Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal/therapeutic use
- Breast Neoplasms/drug therapy
- Breast Neoplasms/mortality
- Breast Neoplasms/pathology
- Breast Neoplasms/therapy
- Carcinoma in Situ/drug therapy
- Carcinoma in Situ/therapy
- Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating/drug therapy
- Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating/mortality
- Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating/secondary
- Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating/therapy
- Carcinoma, Lobular/drug therapy
- Carcinoma, Lobular/therapy
- Combined Modality Therapy
- Double-Blind Method
- Female
- Humans
- Mastectomy, Segmental
- Middle Aged
- Survival Rate
- Tamoxifen/adverse effects
- Tamoxifen/therapeutic use
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- B Fisher
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, Allegheny University of the Health Sciences, Pittsburgh, PA 15212-5234, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
37
|
Abstract
Primary systemic chemotherapy for breast cancer was initially directed at downsizing tumors to make them acceptable candidates for breast-conserving surgery. Later trials used this approach in the hope of improving disease-free survival and overall survival. Results from NSABP protocol B-18 indicate significant initial tumor response and downstaging of lymph nodes in 30% of patients. Patients with small tumors were more likely to experience complete clinical response and complete pathologic response. Patients with larger tumors whose surgeons would have chosen mastectomy often responded with tumor decrease to a size at which lumpectomy was considered feasible. The local recurrence rate in these patients was higher than in those patients selected for lumpectomy primarily. Nevertheless, even with a higher rate of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence, approximately 90% of women older than 50 years and 83% of younger women had successful breast-conserving surgery. There was no difference in disease-free survival or overall survival between preoperative and postoperative chemotherapy groups. The response of patients to initial chemotherapy can be a useful tool in exploring the biology of breast cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- R G Margolese
- Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Fisher B, Bryant J, Wolmark N, Mamounas E, Brown A, Fisher ER, Wickerham DL, Begovic M, DeCillis A, Robidoux A, Margolese RG, Cruz AB, Hoehn JL, Lees AW, Dimitrov NV, Bear HD. Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on the outcome of women with operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1998; 16:2672-85. [PMID: 9704717 DOI: 10.1200/jco.1998.16.8.2672] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1545] [Impact Index Per Article: 59.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/30/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To determine, in women with primary operable breast cancer, if preoperative doxorubicin (Adriamycin) and cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan; AC) therapy yields a better outcome than postoperative AC therapy, if a relationship exists between outcome and tumor response to preoperative chemotherapy, and if such therapy results in the performance of more lumpectomies. PATIENTS AND METHODS Women (1,523) enrolled onto National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) B-18 were randomly assigned to preoperative or postoperative AC therapy. Clinical tumor response to preoperative therapy was graded as complete (cCR), partial (cPR), or no response (cNR). Tumors with a cCR were further categorized as either pathologic complete response (pCR) or invasive cells (pINV). Disease-free survival (DFS), distant disease-free survival (DDFS), and survival were estimated through 5 years and compared between treatment groups. In the preoperative arm, proportional-hazards models were used to investigate the relationship between outcome and tumor response. RESULTS There was no significant difference in DFS, DDFS, or survival (P = .99, .70, and .83, respectively) among patients in either group. More patients treated preoperatively than postoperatively underwent lumpectomy and radiation therapy (67.8% v 59.8%, respectively). Rates of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) after lumpectomy were similar in both groups (7.9% and 5.8%, respectively; P = .23). Outcome was better in women whose tumors showed a pCR than in those with a pINV, cPR, or cNR (relapse-free survival [RFS] rates, 85.7%, 76.9%, 68.1%, and 63.9%, respectively; P < .0001), even when baseline prognostic variables were controlled. When prognostic models were compared for each treatment group, the preoperative model, which included breast tumor response as a variable, discriminated outcome among patients to about the same degree as the postoperative model. CONCLUSION Preoperative chemotherapy is as effective as postoperative chemotherapy, permits more lumpectomies, is appropriate for the treatment of certain patients with stages I and II disease, and can be used to study breast cancer biology. Tumor response to preoperative chemotherapy correlates with outcome and could be a surrogate for evaluating the effect of chemotherapy on micrometastases; however, knowledge of such a response provided little prognostic information beyond that which resulted from postoperative therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- B Fisher
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Operations and Biostatistical Centers, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
39
|
Margolese RG. How do we interpret the results of the Breast Cancer Prevention trial? CMAJ 1998; 158:1613-4. [PMID: 9645175 PMCID: PMC1229412] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [MESH Headings] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
|
40
|
Gorin MB, Day R, Costantino JP, Fisher B, Redmond CK, Wickerham L, Gomolin JE, Margolese RG, Mathen MK, Bowman DM, Kaufman DI, Dimitrov NV, Singerman LJ, Bornstein R, Wolmark N, Kaufmann D. Long-term tamoxifen citrate use and potential ocular toxicity. Am J Ophthalmol 1998; 125:493-501. [PMID: 9559735 DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9394(99)80190-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 104] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE To estimate the prevalence of abnormalities in visual function and ocular structures associated with the long-term use of tamoxifen citrate. METHODS A single-masked, cross-sectional study involving multiple community and institutional ophthalmologic departments was conducted with a volunteer sample of 303 women with breast cancer currently taking part in a randomized clinical trial to determine the efficacy of tamoxifen (20 mg/day) in preventing recurrences. Participants included women who had never been on drug (n=85); women who had taken tamoxifen for an average of 4.8 years, then been off the drug for an average of 2.7 years (n=140); and women who had been on tamoxifen continuously for an average of 7.8 years (n=78). Women were evaluated by questionnaire, psychophysical testing, and clinical examination to determine any abnormalities in visual function and the comparative prevalences of corneal, lens, retinal, and optic nerve pathology. RESULTS There were no cases of vision-threatening ocular toxicity among the tamoxifen-treated participants. Compared with nontreated participants, the tamoxifen-treated women had no differences in the activities of daily vision, visual acuity measurements, or other tests of visual function except for color screening. Intraretinal crystals (odds ratio [OR]=3.58, P=.178) and posterior subcapsular opacities (OR=4.03, P=.034) were more frequent in the tamoxifen-treated group. CONCLUSIONS Women should have a thorough baseline ophthalmic evaluation within the first year of initiating tamoxifen therapy and receive appropriate follow-up evaluations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M B Gorin
- Department of Ophthalmology, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
41
|
Fisher B, Dignam J, Wolmark N, DeCillis A, Emir B, Wickerham DL, Bryant J, Dimitrov NV, Abramson N, Atkins JN, Shibata H, Deschenes L, Margolese RG. Tamoxifen and chemotherapy for lymph node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1997; 89:1673-82. [PMID: 9390536 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/89.22.1673] [Citation(s) in RCA: 340] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The B-20 study of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) was conducted to determine whether chemotherapy plus tamoxifen would be of greater benefit than tamoxifen alone in the treatment of patients with axillary lymph node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. METHODS Eligible patients (n = 2306) were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups following surgery. A total of 771 patients with follow-up data received tamoxifen alone; 767 received methotrexate, fluorouracil, and tamoxifen (MFT); and 768 received cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, fluorouracil, and tamoxifen (CMFT). The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate disease-free survival, distant disease-free survival, and survival. Reported P values are two-sided. RESULTS Through 5 years of follow-up, chemotherapy plus tamoxifen resulted in significantly better disease-free survival than tamoxifen alone (90% for MFT versus 85% for tamoxifen [P = .01]; 89% for CMFT versus 85% for tamoxifen [P = .001]). A similar benefit was observed in both distant disease-free survival (92% for MFT versus 87% for tamoxifen [P = .008]; 91% for CMFT versus 87% for tamoxifen [P = .006]) and survival (97% for MFT versus 94% for tamoxifen [P = .05]; 96% for CMFT versus 94% for tamoxifen [P = .03]). Compared with tamoxifen alone, MFT and CMFT reduced the risk of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence after lumpectomy and the risk of recurrence at other local, regional, and distant sites. Risk of treatment failure was reduced after both types of chemotherapy, regardless of tumor size, tumor estrogen or progesterone receptor level, or patient age; however, the reduction was greatest in patients aged 49 years or less. No subgroup of patients evaluated in this study failed to benefit from chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS Findings from this and other NSABP studies indicate that patients with breast cancer who meet NSABP protocol criteria, regardless of age, lymph node status, tumor size, or estrogen receptor status, are candidates for chemotherapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- B Fisher
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, University of Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
42
|
Fisher B, Brown A, Mamounas E, Wieand S, Robidoux A, Margolese RG, Cruz AB, Fisher ER, Wickerham DL, Wolmark N, DeCillis A, Hoehn JL, Lees AW, Dimitrov NV. Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on local-regional disease in women with operable breast cancer: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-18. J Clin Oncol 1997; 15:2483-93. [PMID: 9215816 DOI: 10.1200/jco.1997.15.7.2483] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1250] [Impact Index Per Article: 46.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/04/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To determine whether preoperative doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) permits more lumpectomies to be performed and decreases the incidence of positive nodes in women with primary breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Women (n = 1,523) were randomized to National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) B-18; 759 eligible patients received postoperative AC and 747, preoperative AC. The clinical size of breast and axillary tumors was determined before each of four cycles of AC and before surgery. Tumor response to preoperative therapy was clinically complete (cCR), partial (cPR), stable (cSD), or progressive disease (cPD). Tissue from patients with a cCR was evaluated for a pathologic complete response (pCR). RESULTS Breast tumor size was reduced in 80% of patients after preoperative therapy; 36% had a cCR. Tumor size and clinical nodal status were independent predictors of cCR. Twenty-six percent of women with a cCR had a pCR. Clinical nodal response occurred in 89% of node-positive patients: 73% had a cCR and 44% of those had a pCR. There was a 37% increase in the incidence of pathologically negative nodes. Before randomization, lumpectomy was proposed for 86% of women with tumors < or = 2 cm, 70% with tumors 2.1 to 5.0 cm, and 3% with tumors > or = 5.1 cm. Clinical tumor size and nodal status influenced the physician's decision. Overall, 12% more lumpectomies were performed in the preoperative group; in women with tumors > or = 5.1 cm, there was a 175% increase. CONCLUSION Preoperative therapy reduced the size of most breast tumors and decreased the incidence of positive nodes. The greatest increase in lumpectomy after preoperative therapy occurred in women with tumors > or = 5 cm, since women with tumors less than 5 cm were already lumpectomy candidates. Preoperative therapy should be considered for the initial management of breast tumors judged too large for lumpectomy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- B Fisher
- Department of Biostatistics, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Shadyside Hospital, PA, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
43
|
Fisher B, Dignam J, Bryant J, DeCillis A, Wickerham DL, Wolmark N, Costantino J, Redmond C, Fisher ER, Bowman DM, Deschênes L, Dimitrov NV, Margolese RG, Robidoux A, Shibata H, Terz J, Paterson AH, Feldman MI, Farrar W, Evans J, Lickley HL. Five versus more than five years of tamoxifen therapy for breast cancer patients with negative lymph nodes and estrogen receptor-positive tumors. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996; 88:1529-42. [PMID: 8901851 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/88.21.1529] [Citation(s) in RCA: 680] [Impact Index Per Article: 24.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/02/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND In 1982, the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project initiated a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial (B-14) to determine the effectiveness of adjuvant tamoxifen therapy in patients with primary operable breast cancer who had estrogen receptor-positive tumors and no axillary lymph node involvement. The findings indicated that tamoxifen therapy provided substantial benefit to patients with early stage disease. However, questions arose about how long the observed benefit would persist, about the duration of therapy necessary to maintain maximum benefit, and about the nature and severity of adverse effects from prolonged treatment. PURPOSE We evaluated the outcome of patients in the B-14 trial through 10 years of follow-up. In addition, the effects of 5 years versus more than 5 years of tamoxifen therapy were compared. METHODS In the trial, patients were initially assigned to receive either tamoxifen at 20 mg/day (n = 1404) or placebo (n = 1414). Tamoxifen-treated patients who remained disease free after 5 years of therapy were then reassigned to receive either another 5 years of tamoxifen (n = 322) or 5 years of placebo (n = 321). After the study began, another group of patients who met the same protocol eligibility requirements as the randomly assigned patients were registered to receive tamoxifen (n = 1211). Registered patients who were disease free after 5 years of treatment were also randomly assigned to another 5 years of tamoxifen (n = 261) or to 5 years of placebo (n = 249). To compare 5 years with more than 5 years of tamoxifen therapy, data relating to all patients reassigned to an additional 5 years of the drug were combined. Patients who were not reassigned to either tamoxifen or placebo continued to be followed in the study. Survival, disease-free survival, and distant disease-free survival (relating to failure at distant sites) were estimated by use of the Kaplan-Meier method; differences between the treatment groups were assessed by use of the logrank test. The relative risks of failure (with 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) were determined by use of the Cox proportional hazards model. Reported P values are two-sided. RESULTS Through 10 years of follow-up, a significant advantage in disease-free survival (69% versus 57%, P < .0001; relative risk = 0.66; 95% CI = 0.58-0.74), distant disease-free survival (76% versus 67%, P < .0001; relative risk = 0.70; 95% CI = 0.61-0.81), and survival (80% versus 76%, P = .02; relative risk = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.71-0.99) was found for patients in the group first assigned to receive tamoxifen. The survival benefit extended to those 49 years of age or younger and to those 50 years of age or older. Tamoxifen therapy was associated with a 37% reduction in the incidence of contralateral (opposite) breast cancer (P = .007). Through 4 years after the reassignment of tamoxifen-treated patients to either continued-therapy or placebo groups, advantages in disease-free survival (92% versus 86%, P = .003) and distant disease-free survival (96% versus 90%, P = .01) were found for those who discontinued tamoxifen treatment. Survival was 96% for those who discontinued tamoxifen compared with 94% for those who continued tamoxifen treatment (P = .08). A higher incidence of thromboembolic events was seen in tamoxifen-treated patients (through 5 years, 1.7% versus 0.4%). Except for endometrial cancer, the incidence of second cancers was not increased with tamoxifen therapy. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS The benefit from 5 years of tamoxifen therapy persists through 10 years of follow-up. No additional advantage is obtained from continuing tamoxifen therapy for more than 5 years.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- B Fisher
- University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, PA 15261, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
44
|
Fisher B, Dignam J, Mamounas EP, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, Redmond C, Wolmark N, Dimitrov NV, Bowman DM, Glass AG, Atkins JN, Abramson N, Sutherland CM, Aron BS, Margolese RG. Sequential methotrexate and fluorouracil for the treatment of node-negative breast cancer patients with estrogen receptor-negative tumors: eight-year results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) B-13 and first report of findings from NSABP B-19 comparing methotrexate and fluorouracil with conventional cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil. J Clin Oncol 1996; 14:1982-92. [PMID: 8683228 DOI: 10.1200/jco.1996.14.7.1982] [Citation(s) in RCA: 186] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/01/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To compare sequential methotrexate (M) and fluorouracil (F) (M-->F) with surgery (National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project [NSABP] B-13) and cyclophosphamide (C), M, and F with M-->F (NSABP B-19), in patients with estrogen receptor (ER)-negative tumors and negative axillary nodes. PATIENTS AND METHODS A total of 760 patients were randomized to B-13; 1,095 patients with the same eligibility requirements were randomized to B-19. Disease-free survival (DFS), distant disease-free survival (DDFS), and survival were determined using life-table estimates. RESULTS A significant benefit in overall DFS (74% v 59%; P < .001) was demonstrated at 8 years in all B-13 patients who received M-->F (69% v 56% [P = .006] in those <or= 49 years of age, and 81% v 63% [P = .002] in those >or= 50 years). A survival advantage was evident in older patients (89% v 80%; P = .03). In B-19, through 5 years, an overall DFS advantage (82% v 73%; P < .001) and a borderline survival advantage (88% v 85%; P = .06) were evident with CMF. The DFS (84% v 72%; P < .001) and survival (89% v 84%; P = .04) benefits from CMF were greater in women aged <or= 49 years. M-->F or CMF after lumpectomy and breast irradiation resulted in a low probability of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR). In B-13, the frequency of IBTR was 2.6% following M-->F versus 13.4% in women treated by lumpectomy; it was 0.6% following CMF in B-19. Toxicity >or= grade 3 was more frequent among CMF patients in B-19. The age-related difference in CMF benefit was not related to amount of drug received. CONCLUSION M-->F and CMF are effective for node-negative patients with ER-negative tumors. The incidence of local-regional or distant metastases and IBTR decreased after either therapy. The benefit from either therapy was evident in all patients, but the CMF advantage was greater in those <or= 49 years. Because it is less toxic, M-->F may be used in patients with medical problems that would preclude CMF administration.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- B Fisher
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Scientific Director's Office, Pittsburgh, PA 15261, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
45
|
Affiliation(s)
- R G Margolese
- Surgical Oncology, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
46
|
Margolese RG. Ductal carcinoma in situ. Recent Results Cancer Res 1996; 140:131-138. [PMID: 8787056 DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-79278-6_15] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/22/2023]
|
47
|
Margolese RG. 1994 Roussel Lecture: a biologic basis for changes in breast cancer management. Can J Surg 1995; 38:402-8. [PMID: 7553462] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/25/2023] Open
Abstract
Cancer treatment in the past has been based on contemporary biologic understanding of the disease process. For most of this century cancer was viewed as an anatomic problem, and the treatment was surgical, with radical and extended radical operations viewed as appropriate. With improved understanding of the true biologic nature of cancer, the extent of surgery has been modified, and clinical trials have confirmed the suitability of breast-conserving surgery. At the same time, adjuvant chemotherapies have extended disease-free survival and survival for many categories of patient. Unfortunately, these gains have been of limited clinical dimensions. More recently, the genetic model of cancer has led to attempts at cancer prevention. In the biologic sense we have entered an era in which surgery is the adjuvant therapy, and systemic treatments have increased breast cancer cure rates. We must now move from a strategy that tries to kill cancer cells to one that seeks to control their growth, which may, if successful provide an approach for true cancer prevention.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- R G Margolese
- Department of Oncology, McGill University, Sir Mortimer B. Davis-Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Que
| |
Collapse
|
48
|
Prager D, Grundfest-Broniatowski S, Lerner HJ, Margolese RG, Dimitrov N, Silverman P. Breast cancer: are imaging studies cost effective following breast cancer and adjuvant therapy? Semin Oncol 1995; 22:xiii, xix-xx, xxvi-xxvii passim. [PMID: 7638627] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/26/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- D Prager
- Fairgrounds Medical Center, Allentown, PA, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
49
|
Margolese RG. Breast cancer surgery: who chooses and how? CMAJ 1994; 150:331-3. [PMID: 8293373 PMCID: PMC1486166] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [MESH Headings] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/29/2023] Open
|
50
|
Abstract
The preoccupation with local recurrence in breast-conserving surgery represents the dominance of anatomic worries over biologic ones and is similar to the concerns that led our ancestors to devise the radical mastectomy which we now know to be an inappropriate solution to the cancer problem. Local recurrence in a conserved breast is not seen to be a cause of distant failure or death, but is often a reflection of metastases in those patients that have them. With the advent of adjuvant chemotherapy, even in node-negative cases, we have seen a conspicuous decline in local recurrence rates. The vast majority of patients with primary breast cancer can be safely and adequately treated by lumpectomy with radiation therapy and axillary dissection. Local recurrence rates are suppressed by the routine addition of adjuvant therapy. Careful attention to the principles of breast-conserving surgery will give the best cosmesis and the best rates of local control.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- R G Margolese
- McGill University, Department of Oncology, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| |
Collapse
|