Adjuvant chemotherapy with sequential or concurrent anthracycline and docetaxel: Breast International Group 02-98 randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Docetaxel is more effective than doxorubicin for patients with advanced breast cancer. The Breast International Group 02-98 randomized trial tested the effect of incorporating docetaxel into anthracycline-based adjuvant chemotherapy and compared sequential vs concurrent administration of doxorubicin and docetaxel. METHODS: Patients with lymph node-positive breast cancer (n = 2887) were randomly assigned to one of four treatments: 1) sequential control (four cycles of doxorubicin at 75 mg/m2, followed by three cycles of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and 5-fluorouracil [CMF]); 2) concurrent control (four cycles of doxorubicin at 60 mg/m2 plus cyclophosphamide at 600 mg/m2, followed by three cycles of CMF); 3) sequential docetaxel (three cycles of doxorubicin at 75 mg/m2, followed by three cycles of docetaxel at 100 mg/m2, followed by three cycles of CMF); 4) concurrent docetaxel (four cycles of doxorubicin at 50 mg/m2 plus docetaxel at 75 mg/m2, followed by three cycles of CMF). The primary comparison evaluated the efficacy of including docetaxel regardless of schedule and was planned after 1215 disease-free survival (DFS) events (ie, relapse, second primary cancer, or death from any cause). Docetaxel and control treatment groups were compared by log-rank tests, and hazard ratios (HR) of DFS events were calculated by Cox modeling. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Due to a lower-than-anticipated rate of relapse, this analysis was performed after 5 years with 732 events. Patients in control arms had a 5-year DFS of 73% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 70% to 75%). Docetaxel treatment resulted in an improvement in DFS of borderline statistical significance compared with control treatment (HR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.74 to 1.00; P = .05). However, DFS in the sequential docetaxel arm was better than that in the concurrent docetaxel arm (HR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.69 to 1.00) and in the sequential control arm (HR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.64 to 0.98). CONCLUSIONS: Incorporating docetaxel into anthracycline-based therapy resulted in an improvement in DFS that was of borderline statistical significance. However, important differences may be related to doxorubicin and docetaxel scheduling, with sequential but not concurrent administration, appearing to produce better DFS than anthracycline-based chemotherapy.

Time-to-progression in breast cancer: a stratification model for clinical trials.

The development of new anti-tumour drugs without clear cytoreductive activity has necessitated changes in the design of clinical trials. Defining the "time" parameter has become the essential objective of the majority of these trials. However, in breast cancer, this parameter is highly variable and, as such, difficult to quantify. We developed a useful tool that takes into account the inter-relatedness of all the variables known to have the capacity to predict the time-to-progression (TTP) in advanced breast cancer. From the Alamo database (GEICAM), we selected 1798 patients diagnosed as having metastatic breast cancer. Univariate analysis was performed using the method of Kaplan-Meier. Multivariate analysis was with the Cox regression method. The variables that were shown to have independent predictive value for the TTP were: non-visceral metastatic disease, single metastases, hormonal receptor positive N/T ratio<2 and disease-free interval (DFI) > or = 24 months. Taking into account the variables that had reached an independent predictive value, we constructed a model of scoring in which the patients were grouped according to the TTP. Using our new scoring model, it is possible to group patients with metastatic breast cancer according to the predicted TTP. This can be a useful tool at the time of selecting and stratifying patients on entry into new randomised clinical trials.

Gemcitabine plus vinorelbine versus vinorelbine monotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer previously treated with anthracyclines and taxanes: final results of the phase III Spanish Breast Cancer Research Group (GEICAM) trial.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to compare the additional benefit of gemcitabine when combined with vinorelbine above that of standard vinorelbine treatment in patients with metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: In this phase III, multicentre, open-label, randomised study, 252 women with locally recurrent and metastatic breast cancer who had been pretreated with anthracyclines and taxanes were randomly assigned single-agent vinorelbine (30 mg/m(2), days 1 and 8) or gemcitabine plus vinorelbine (1200/30 mg/m(2), days 1 and 8). Both study treatments were administered intravenously every 21 days until disease progression, unacceptable toxic effects, or stoppage at the request of investigator or patient. The primary endpoint was median progression-free survival. Secondary objectives included assessments of response rate, disease duration, overall survival, and characterisation of the toxicity profiles of both regimens. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00128310. FINDINGS: Between 2001 and 2005, 252 women were recruited and randomised for treatment. One of these patients was ineligible. Prognostic factors were well balanced between treatment groups (median number of metastatic sites in combination group 2 (range 0-5) and in vinorelbine group 2 (range 1-6); visceral disease in 76% and 75% of patients, respectively). Median progression-free survival was 6.0 months (95% CI 4.8-7.1) for patients given gemcitabine plus vinorelbine and 4.0 months (2.9-5.1) for those assigned vinorelbine; there was 1.9 months of difference (hazard ratio 0.66 [0.50-0.88]; p=0.0028). Overall survival was 15.9 months (12.6-19.1) for the gemcitabine plus vinorelbine group and 16.4 months (11.6-21.0) for the vinorelbine group; there was 0.5 months of difference (hazard ratio 1.04 [0.78-1.39]; p=0.8046). Objective response rates were 36% for patients assigned gemcitabine plus vinorelbine (n=45) and 26% for those assigned vinorelbine (n=33) (p=0.093). Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia was reported in 75 (61% [52-70]) of the participants assigned gemcitabine plus vinorelbine, compared with 55 (44% [35-53]) of those assigned vinorelbine alone (p=0.0074). Febrile neutropenia occurred in 13 (11%) of those assigned gemcitabine plus vinorelbine, and in seven (6%) of those assigned vinorelbine alone (p=0.15). Incidences of grade 3 or 4 non-haematological toxic effects were similar between the two treatment groups. INTERPRETATION: Patients with metastatic breast cancer assigned gemcitabine and vinorelbine had better progression-free survival compared with those assigned vinorelbine alone. However, this finding did not translate into a difference in overall survival. Although toxicity was manageable, patients in the combined group had more haematological toxic effects. These factors should be taken into account when deciding which chemotherapy patients should receive.

Risk-adapted management for patients with clinical stage I seminoma: the Second Spanish Germ Cell Cancer Cooperative Group study.

PURPOSE: To assess the efficacy of a risk-adapted treatment policy for patients with stage I seminoma by using universally accepted risk criteria. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 1999 and 2003, 314 patients with clinical stage I seminoma after orchiectomy were prospectively included. One hundred patients (31.8%) presented no risk factors and were managed with surveillance. In contrast, 131 patients (41.7%) had tumors larger than 4 cm, 33 patients (10.5%) had rete testis involvement, and 50 patients (15.9%) had both risk factors. All the latter received two courses of adjuvant carboplatin. RESULTS: Chemotherapy was well tolerated, as only 17 patients (7.9%) presented grade 3 to 4 toxicity. Relapses were observed in six patients (6.0%) on surveillance and in seven patients (3.3%) treated with carboplatin (0.8% of tumors larger than 4 cm, 9.1% of those involving the rete testis, and 6.0% of patients with both risk criteria). All were located at the retroperitoneum, except for one at the spermatic cord. Median tumor size was 25 mm (range, 11 to 70 mm), and median time to relapse was 9 months (range, 4 to 28 months). All patients were rendered disease-free with chemotherapy (etoposide plus cisplatin). Median follow-up was 34 months (range, 12 to 72 months). The actuarial 5-year disease-free survival rate was 93.4% for patients on surveillance and 96.2% for patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy. Overall 5-year survival was 100%. CONCLUSION: Adjuvant carboplatin is effective in reducing the relapse rate in patients with stage I seminoma and risk factors. A risk-adapted strategy is safe and feasible and should be considered an alternative to systematic approaches, such as irradiation, chemotherapy, or surveillance.

Multicenter randomized trial comparing sequential with concomitant administration of doxorubicin and docetaxel as first-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer: a Spanish Breast Cancer Research Group (GEICAM-9903) phase III study.

PURPOSE: This randomized, multicenter, phase III trial evaluated whether sequential doxorubicin and docetaxel (A-->T) reduced hematological toxicity, especially febrile neutropenia, compared with concomitant (AT) administration as first-line chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer (MBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred forty-four patients were randomly assigned to receive three cycles of doxorubicin 75 mg/m(2) every 21 days followed by three cycles of docetaxel 100 mg/m(2), every 21 days (A-->T) or six cycles of the combination doxorubicin 50 mg/m(2) and docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) (AT) every 21 days. Patients previously treated with anthracyclines received two cycles of doxorubicin followed by four cycles of docetaxel (A-->T), or three cycles of AT followed by three cycles of docetaxel 100 mg/m(2) every 21 days. RESULTS: Febrile neutropenia was less common in the A-->T arm (29.3% of patients, 6.9% of cycles) compared with the AT arm (47.8% of patients, 14.8% of cycles; P =.02 and P =.0004, respectively). Asthenia, diarrhea, and fever occurred more frequently in the AT arm. The overall responses rates were 61% in the A-->T arm (95% CI, 50% to 72%) and 51% in the AT arm (95% CI, 39% to 63%). The median duration of response was 8.7 months (A-->T) and 7.6 months (AT); the median time to progression was 10.5 months (A-->T) and 9.2 months (AT); the median overall survival was 22.3 months (A-->T) and 21.8 months (AT); and no significant differences were found. CONCLUSION: A-->T significantly reduced febrile neutropenia compared with AT in MBC patients and maintains comparable antitumoral efficacy. A-->T represents a valid option for the treatment of MBC.