Search

Adjuvant chemotherapy has a real but modest impact on the disease-free and overall survival of patients with breast cancer. Recent attempts to improve its effectiveness have focused on dose intensity and new agents. Sequential therapy maximized dose intensity while limiting overlapping toxicity. Sequential therapy using doxorubicin followed by cyclophosphamide/methotrexate/5-fluorouracil (CMF) has been found superior in patients with high-risk resectable breast cancer. The novel chemotherapy agent paclitaxel (Taxol; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Princeton, NJ) is now known to be highly active in advanced breast cancer and appears to be clinically non-cross-resistant with doxorubicin. Therefore, this drug is being studied as a component of the next generation of adjuvant chemotherapy regimens. The most appropriate way to incorporate paclitaxel has not yet been defined, but its concurrent administration with other agents has, in some cases, been troublesome. Based on the demonstrated advantage of the sequential plan for doxorubicin and CMF, we conducted a series of pilot trials testing sequential high-dose therapy. Initially, we studied multiple cycles of doxorubicin followed by cyclophosphamide; we later added paclitaxel to this regimen. These phase II studies demonstrate the feasibility of sequential therapy with doxorubicin, paclitaxel, and cyclophosphamide, and early disease-free survival results are promising. Cooperative group projects are under way or planned to further define the activity of these regimens.

The results of both retrospective and prospective studies suggest that the effectiveness of systemic adjuvant chemotherapy with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide for breast cancer may be related to the dose intensity of these agents. Recent trials also have demonstrated the high activity of paclitaxel (Taxol; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Princeton, NJ) against metastatic breast cancer. Clinically, paclitaxel appears to be noncross-resistant with doxorubicin, but the unique and overlapping toxicities of these three agents might preclude concurrent adjuvant administration. A possible solution is sequential rather than concurrent administration, an approach that kinetic modelling predicts to be superior. A pilot study testing dose-intensive sequential administration of doxorubicin/paclitaxel/cyclophosphamide enrolled 42 patients with a median age of 42 years who had resected breast cancer metastatic to four or more ipsilateral axillary lymph nodes. Intravenous treatment, given at 14-day intervals, began with three cycles of doxorubicin 90 mg/m2, followed by three cycles of paclitaxel 250 mg/m2, given as a 24-hour infusion, and, finally, three cycles of cyclophosphamide 3 g/m2. Selected patients received radiotherapy. The median number of positive lymph nodes was eight (range, four to 25), and the median tumor size was 3.0 cm (range, 0 to 11.0 cm). Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor support was given. Both hematologic and non-hematologic toxicity were substantial but manageable. Hospital admission was necessary in 62 (17%) of 369 chemotherapy cycles in 29 patients (69%). As planned, the median intertreatment interval was 14 days through all nine cycles of therapy, and the median delivered dose intensity exceeded 98% for all three agents. The median follow-up from local control surgery in December 1994 was 448 days (range, 82 to 632 days). Three patients (7.2%) had disease relapses, one during the doxorubicin portion of treatment and two (4.9%) who had completed treatment with all three agents. Sequential dose-intensive therapy with doxorubicin/paclitaxel/cyclophosphamide has manageable toxicity and, with short follow-up, is a promising new regimen suitable for randomized testing.

Single-agent paclitaxel (TAXOL) was administered to 79 patients with stage IV breast cancer. Twenty-eight patients had no prior chemotherapy (for metastatic disease), and 51 patients had extensive exposure to other chemotherapeutic agents before beginning the 24-hour paclitaxel infusion. Routine use of recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor helped to ameliorate neutropenia, the dose-limiting toxicity, in some cases. Other toxicity was generally mild to moderate. Paclitaxel was more active in patients whose stage IV disease had not yet been exposed to chemotherapy, but activity was seen in the patients previously treated extensively as well. There is a strong clinical suggestion of non-cross-resistance with doxorubicin. In one case, an excellent response in previously irradiated skin was seen. Paclitaxel is a very promising agent for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer.

The recent large-scale production of biomodulators, also known as biologic response modifiers, made possible through recombinant DNA technology, offers the potential for significant advances in the treatment of cancer. The antitumor activity of these agents, such as interferons, interleukins, and tumor necrosis factor, have generated enthusiasm for further investigation. In an effort to improve response rates, combinations of these agents both with and without conventional therapies are currently being examined. Clinical trials have been conducted with various therapeutic combinations, including a biomodulator plus chemotherapy, combinations of different biomodulators, a biomodulator with concomitant chemotherapy and radiation, and multiple combinations of chemotherapies and biomodulators. These approaches are promising and some limited successes have been reported; however, the goal of increased anticancer activity without greater toxicities or antagonism between various agents is not always achieved. Synergism among active agents is not necessarily assured and quite unexpected and unpredictable toxicities have been noted. The studies to date suggest that important new therapies will emerge, but many questions have to be answered before the specific roles of these new treatments are defined.

The increasing focus on cost-effectiveness in all cancer care and the decision of many third-party payers to deny funding for investigational therapy is of particular concern in metastatic renal cell carcinoma. There is as yet no effective standard treatment for this disease; surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy have all proved inadequate. The use of "investigational" therapy with biologic response modifiers, such as alpha interferon and interleukin-2, however, has shown promise. Investigational therapy, therefore, actually represents state-of-the-art treatment that offers the patient the best chance for increased survival, tumor regression, and improved quality of life. Under the current method of insurance reimbursement, however, investigational research is threatened despite the numerous reasons that such treatment is both cost-effective and therapeutically sound.