Search

Purpose. To assess the toxicity and efficacy of biweekly gemcitabine plus vinorelbine in first-line advanced breast cancer, and to establish whether circulating HER2 ECD levels correlate with the efficacy of the combination. Patients and methods. 52 patients were treated with gemcitabine 2500 mg/m(2) plus vinorelbine 30 mg/m(2), both on day 1 of 14-day cycles, for a maximum of 10 cycles. Baseline serum levels of HER2 ECD were assessed with an ELISA. Results. All patients were evaluable for toxicity, and 50 for efficacy. Overall toxicity was moderate. Grade 3 neutropenia occurred in 35% of patients and grade 4 in 19%. Other grade 3 toxicities were observed in less than 6%. There was one episode of febrile neutropenia, and one death after cycle three. Overall response rate was 52% (95% CI: 38% to 66%), with 2 patients achieving a CR (4%). Response rate did not correlate with HER2 ECD, with 50% of HER2 ECD positive patients responding, vs 48.5% of the HER2 ECD negative. Median overall survival was 24.6 months. Conclusion. Gemcitabine plus vinorelbine, given as an every-two-week schedule, is an active regimen in advanced breast carcinoma. This combination can be an option when anthracyclines and taxanes are not preferred. HER2 ECD has no predictive value in this non-taxane combination.

The administration of G-CSF post transplant has been shown to accelerate the time to neutrophil engraftment. However, this does not necessarily translate into a meaningful clinical benefit to the patient. This randomized study was designed to determine the role of G-CSF following transplantation in patients with breast cancer (BC). A total of 241 evaluable patients with BC were included. There were 200 patients with high-risk BC, and 41 had disseminated BC in complete remission. All patients received conventional dose chemotherapy prior to transplantation. Patients were mobilized with G-CSF, received the STAMP V regimen, were transplanted withor = 2.5 x 10(6) of CD34(+) cells/kg and were then randomized to receive 5 microg/kg of G-CSF starting on the day of infusion (arm A), five days later (arm B), or no G-CSF (arm C). The need for transfusion support, infectious complications and length of hospitalization were the variables chosen to demonstrate clinical benefit. Patients receiving G-CSF reached 500 and 1000 neutrophils significantly faster (P = 0.001) than patients with no G-CSF. This translated into a significantly (P0.05) shorter hospitalization time for patients receiving G-CSF. Arm C was closed and, after recruiting 110 patients in arm A, and 106 in arm B, the significant difference in neutrophil recovery persisted with no difference in the time of hospitalization between arms A and B. Therefore, G-CSF significantly accelerates the time to neutrophil engraftment. This translates into a shorter time of hospitalization. There is no difference in this variable regarding the time of administering the G-CSF: day 0 vs day +5. Therefore, G-CSF on day +5 should be the standard in this setting.

The effect of an extensive prophylactic antimicrobial regimen was prospectively assessed in 126 patients after high-dose chemotherapy and autologous PBSC. They received ciprofloxacin (500 mg/12 h), acyclovir (200 mg/6 h), and itraconazole (200 mg/12 h) orally until neutrophil recovery. Febrile patients received i.v. imipenem (500 mg/6 h) to which vancomycin and amikacin were added if fever persisted for 2-3 and 5 days, respectively. Amphotericin B lipid complex was further given on day 7 or 8 of fever. Median times for a neutrophil count of >0.5 x 10(9)/l and a platelet count of >20 x 10(9)/l were 9 and 11 days. Severe neutropenia (

One hundred patients with metastatic breast cancer were randomly selected to receive combined chemotherapy treatment with adriamycin (50 mg/m2) or mitoxantrone (12 mg/m2) associated with 5-fluorouracil (600 mg/m2) and cyclophosphamide (600 mg/m2) administered intravenously every 21 days with a maximum of ten cycles. All patients included in this study were under 75 years of age and had ECOG performance status of less than 4. They had not been treated previously with chemotherapy for metastatic disease. Patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy, which could not have included anthracyclines, had to have relapsed at least 12 months after the completion of therapy. There were no statistically significant differences in pretreatment characteristics or metastatic disease location between the two groups. Ninety-four patients were assessable for response. No differences were observed in response rate or in survival between the groups. The response rate (complete response (CR) and partial response (PR)) was 68% (13% CR and 55% PR for CAF; 0% CR and 68% PR for CNF). Median survival for all patients was 19 months (18 months with CAF and 19 months with CNF). All patients were assessable for toxicity. There were no differences in gastrointestinal and cardiac toxicity. More grade I-II hematologic toxicity episodes (p < 0.001) and treatment delays (p = 0.05) due to leucopenia were observed with the CNF group, and more grade III alopecia (p < 0.001) was observed with the CAF group. Patients received further therapeutic manoeuvres after finishing the study with a sequential treatment consisting of hormonal therapy and chemotherapy with mitomycin (M) -vinblastine (Vbl) (M 10 mg/m2 day 1, Vbl 5 mg/m2 days 1, 15 and 29; maximum 5 cycles). This chemotherapy treatment was received by 32 patients, with a response rate of 34% and grade III-IV hematologic toxicity of 37%. Treatment with CNF can be considered a good alternative to CAF for first-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer. M-Vbl treatment is useful as second-line treatment in patients with prior adriamycin exposure.