Search

Purpose: Treatment with CDK4/6 inhibitors and endocrine therapy (CDK4/6i + ET) is a standard for patients with advanced hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative (HR + HER2-) breast cancer (BC). However, real-world data on the implementation of therapy usage, efficacy, and toxicity have not yet been reported., Methods: The PRAEGNANT registry was used to identify advanced HR + HER2- BC patients (n = 1136). The use of chemotherapy, ET, everolimus + ET, and CDK4/6i + ET was analyzed for first-line, second-line, and third-line therapy. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were also compared between patients treated with CDK4/6i + ET and ET monotherapy. Also toxicity was assessed., Results: CDK4/6i + ET use increased from 38.5% to 62.7% in the first 2 years after CDK4/6i treatment became available (November 2016). Chemotherapy and ET monotherapy use decreased from 2015 to 2018 from 42.2% to 27.2% and from 53% to 9.5%, respectively. In this early analysis no statistically significant differences were found comparing CDK4/6i + ET and ET monotherapy patients with regard to PFS and OS. Leukopenia was was seen in 11.3% of patients under CDK4/6i + ET and 0.5% under ET monotherapy., Conclusions: In clinical practice, CDK4/6i + ET has been rapidly implemented. A group of patients with a more unfavorable prognosis was possibly treated in the real-world setting than in the reported randomized clinical trials. The available data suggest that longer follow-up times and a larger sample size are required in order to identify differences in survival outcomes. Studies should be supported that investigate whether chemotherapy can be avoided or delayed in this patient population by using CDK4/6i + ET., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest A.S. received honoraria from Roche, AstraZeneca, Aurikamed GmbH, Celgene, ClinSol Research GmbH, Connectmedica Sp.Z o.o., Deutsche Gesellschaft für Senologie GmbH, if-kongress management gmbh, I-MED Institute GmbH, Lilly Deutschland GmbH, Medicultus GmbH, med publico GmbH, MSD Sharp & Dohme GmbH, onkowissen.de GmbH, Pfizer GmbH, Schattauer Verlag GmbH, Promedicis GmbH, Tesaro Bio Germany GmbH, W. Zuckschwerdt Verlag GmbH. J.E. received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Celgene, Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche and TEVA and travel support from Celgene, Pfizer, TEVA, and Pierre Fabre. D.L. received honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Lilly, Loreal, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Tesaro, Teva. M.W.B reports support from Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, AstraZeneca, Roche, Amgen, Eisai, paid to his institution. E.B. received honoraria from Novartis, Celgene, Riemser, Pfizer, Hexal, Amgen, onkowissen.de for consulting, clinical research management or medical education activities. P.A.F. received honoraria from Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Amgen, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Merck-Sharp & Dohme, Eisai, Puma and Teva. His institution conducts research with funding from Novartis and Biontech. T.N.F. reports personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Daichii Sankyo, personal fees from Lilly, personal fees from MSD, outside the submitted work. P.H. received honoraria, unrestricted educational grants and research funding from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. A.D.H. received honoraria from Teva, GenomicHealth, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. C.H. received honoraria from Amgen, Celgene, Oncovis, Roche, and Pfizer. J.H. received honoraria from Astra Zeneca, MSD, Lilly, travel grants from Novartis and research grants from Novartis, Celgene. E.R. reports personal fees from Roche, Pfizer, Amgen, Novartis, Tesaro, Astra Zeneca, Celgene, Pierre Fabre and Riemer, non-financial support from Olympus GmbH, personal fees from Riemser, outside the submitted work. W.J. received research grants and honoroaria from Novartis, Pfizer, Amgen, Chugai, Roche, Genomic-Health, AstraZeneca, Lilly. H.-C.K. received honoraria from Carl Zeiss meditec, TEVA, Theraclion, Novartis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Janssen-Cilag, GSK, LIV Pharma, and Genomic Health. C.M.K. received honoraria from Amgen, Axios, Roche, Teva, Novartis, MSD Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, NewCo, Pfizer, Riemser, and ZytoService, research grants from Amgen, Axios, Novartis, MSD Sharp & Dohme, NewCo, Pfizer, and ZytoService, and travel support from Amgen, Paxman Inc., PharmaMar, and Pfizer. M.P.L. has participated on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Eisai, Genomic Health, Tesaro and Roche and has received honoraria for lectures from MSD, Lilly, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Genomic Health, AstraZeneca, medac and Eisai. V.M. received speaker honoraria from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, Teva, Janssen-Cilag and consultancy honoraria from Genomic Health, Hexal, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Amgen, Novartis, MSD, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, Tesaro and Nektar. N.N. received consultancy honoraria from Janssen-Cilag and travel support from Novartis. F.O. received speaker and consultancy honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer, Celgene, Cellex, Chugai, Gilead, Hexal, Ipsen, Janssen-Cilag, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Riemser, Roche, Tesaro, Teva. H.T. received honoraria from Novartis, Roche, Celgene, TEVA, and Pfizer and travel support. F.-A. T. received honoraria from Astra Zeneca, Genomic Health and Novartis. C.T. received honoraria from Amgen, Astra-Zeneca, Celgene, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. M.U. reports support paid to his institution from Abbvie, Amgen GmbH München, Astra Zeneca, BMS, Celgene GmbH München, Daiji Sankyo, Eisai GmbH München, Janssen Cilag, Johnsen&Johnsen, Lilly Deutschland, Lilly Int., MSD Merck, Mundipharma, Myriad Genetics GmbH Zürich, Odonate, Pfizer GmbH Berlin, PUMA Biotechnology, Riemser, Roche Pharma AG, Grenzach Wyhlen, Sanofi Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sividon Diagnostics Köln, TEVA Pharmaceuticals Ind. Ltd. und. Berlin(.)P.W. received honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Roche, TEVA, Eisai Clovis and Tesaro. She participated in advisory boards of Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Roche, TEVA, Eisai Clovis and Tesaro. Her institution received research grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pharmamar, Clovis and Tesaro. R.W. received honoraria from Agendia, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Boeringer Ingelheim, Carl Zeiss, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, Esai, Genomic Health, Glaxo Smith Kline, Lilly, MSD, Mundipharma, Nanostring, Novartis, Odonate, Paxman, Palleos, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, PumaBiotechnolgogy, Riemser, Roche, Sandoz/Hexal, Seattle Genetics, Tesaro Bio, Teva. M.W. received speaker honoraria from AstraZeneca, Celgene, and Novartis. S.Y.B. reports personal fees from Novartis and Pfizer, both outside the submitted work. All remaining authors (J.S., E.K., M.G., L.H., B.V., D.W.) have declared that they do not have any conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Eligibility criteria are a critical part of clinical trials, as they define the patient population under investigation. Besides certain patient characteristics, clinical trials often include biomarker testing for eligibility. However, patient-identification mostly relies on the trial site itself and is often a time-consuming procedure, which could result in missing out on potentially eligible patients. Pre-selection of those patients using a registry could facilitate the process of eligibility testing and increase the number of identified patients. One aim with the PRAEGNANT registry (NCT02338167) is to identify patients for therapies based on clinical and molecular data. Here, we report eligibility testing for the SHERBOC trial using the German PRAEGNANT registry., Methods: Heregulin (HRG) has been reported to identify patients with better responses to therapy with the anti-HER3 monoclonal antibody seribantumab (MM-121). The SHERBOC trial investigated adding seribantumab (MM-121) to standard therapy in patients with advanced HER2-negative, hormone receptor-positive (HR-positive) breast cancer and HRG overexpression. The PRAEGNANT registry was used for identification and tumor testing, helping to link potential HRG positive patients to the trial. Patients enrolled in PRAEGNANT have invasive and metastatic or locally advanced, inoperable breast cancer. Patients eligible for SHERBOC were identified by using the registry. Study aims were to describe the HRG positivity rate, screening procedures, and patient characteristics associated with inclusion and exclusion criteria., Results: Among 2769 unselected advanced breast cancer patients, 650 were HER2-negative, HR-positive and currently receiving first- or second-line treatment, thus potentially eligible for SHERBOC at the end of current treatment; 125 patients also met further clinical eligibility criteria (e.g. menopausal status, ECOG). In the first/second treatment lines, patients selected for SHERBOC based on further eligibility criteria had a more favorable prognosis than those not selected. HRG status was tested in 38 patients, 14 of whom (36.8%) proved to be HRG-positive., Conclusion: Using a real-world breast cancer registry allowed identification of potentially eligible patients for SHERBOC focusing on patients with HER3 overexpressing, HR-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. This approach may provide insights into differences between patients eligible or non-eligible for clinical trials., Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials, NCT02338167 , Registered 14 January 2015 - retrospectively registered.

Purpose: Neoadjuvant combination treatment with chemotherapy (CTX), trastuzumab (TZM), and pertuzumab (PTZ) has been shown to result in higher pathological complete response rates (pCR) in comparison with treatment with chemotherapy and trastuzumab (CTX/TZM). This analysis was aimed at real-world validation of these results from prospective randomized trials., Methods: In a retrospective analysis conducted in the PRAEGNANT network, patients were eligible for inclusion if they had either received neoadjuvant therapy with CTX/TZM or chemotherapy, trastuzumab, and pertuzumab (CTX/TZM/PTZ) and subsequently underwent surgery for their primary breast cancer. The effect of the two neoadjuvant regimens on pCR in addition to commonly applicable predictors of pCR was analyzed in 300 patients from three study sites, using logistic regression analyses with treatment arm, age, clinical tumor stage, grading, and hormone receptor status as predictors., Results: pCR with complete disappearance of all tumor cells was seen in 30.2% (n = 58) of patients treated with CTX/TZM and in 52.8% (n = 57) of those treated with CTX/TZM/PTZ. CTX/TZM/PTZ was positively associated with pCR (adjusted odds ratio 2.44; 95% CI 1.49-4.02). Mastectomy rates were not influenced by the therapy., Conclusions: The results of clinical trials were confirmed in this dataset of patients who were treated outside of clinical trials in everyday routine work. pCR rates can be improved by 20% with pertuzumab in routine clinical use.

Purpose: This study describes comprehensive data from a breast cancer registry concerning the use of endocrine treatment (ET) and chemotherapy in the first, second and higher therapy lines in hormone receptor (HR) positive, HER2 negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC)., Methods: The PRAEGNANT study is a real-time registry for patients with MBC. Therapies were categorized into the following categories: chemotherapy, aromatase inhibitor (AI), tamoxifen, fulvestrant, or everolimus plus ET and reported for first, second and third line or higher therapy use. Also treatment sequences for the first, second and third therapy line were analyzed., Results: This analysis includes 958 patients with HR positive, HER2 negative MBC. 42.7% were treated with a chemotherapy in the first therapy line compared to 45.9% receiving an ET. A total of 25.9% were treated with everolimus plus anti-hormone therapy in any therapy line. 34.1% were treated with fulvestrant as single agent therapy. Analyzing therapy sequences, the administration of three different chemotherapies in a row was the most frequently used pattern., Conclusions: This analysis shows that across all three first therapy lines chemotherapy is a dominant therapy for HR positive, HER2 negative MBC patients. Education about the efficacy of ET might help to increase its use and decrease the possible burden of chemotherapy related toxicities., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The aim of the ongoing DETECT study program is to evaluate therapeutic intervention based on phenotypes of circulating tumor cells (CTC) in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Currently (as of July 2015) more than half of the projected about 2000 patients with MBC have already been screened for CTC., Methods: Women with HER2-negative primary tumor and presence of CTC are recruited into different DETECT trials according to the HER2-phenotype of CTC. Patients with HER2-positive CTC are randomized to treatment with physicians' choice therapy (standard chemo- or endocrine therapy) with or without additional HER2-targeted therapy with lapatinib in the DETECT III trial. In DETECT IVa, postmenopausal patients with hormone-receptor positive primary cancer and HER2-negative CTC receive everolimus and standard endocrine therapy. For women with HER2-negative CTC and triple negative MBC or hormone-receptor positive tumor and indication for chemotherapy, a treatment with eribulin is offered (DETECT IVb). The clinical efficacy is investigated by CTC-Clearance and progression-free survival (PFS). The DETECT V/CHEVENDO trial extends the DETECT study program for women with HER2-positive and hormone-receptor positive MBC. The primary objective of this trial is to compare safety and quality of life (QoL) as assessed by the occurrence of adverse events in patients treated with dual (trastuzumab plus pertuzumab) HER2-targeted therapy plus either endocrine or chemotherapy. The translational research projects of the DETECT study program focus on further molecular characterization of CTC and evaluation of markers for their suitability to predict treatment response and to facilitate the development of more personalized treatment options.

Background: Taxane-based adjuvant chemotherapy is standard in node-positive (N+) early breast cancer (BC). The magnitude of benefit in intermediate-risk N+ early BC is still unclear. WSG-AGO epiribicine and cyclophosphamide (EC)-Doc is a large trial evaluating modern taxane-based chemotherapy in patients with 1-3 positive lymph nodes (LNs) only., Patients and Methods: A total of 2011 BC patients (18-65 years, pN1) were entered into a randomized phase III trial comparing 4 × E90C600 q3w followed by 4 × docetaxel 100 q3w (n = 1008) with the current standard: 6 × F500E100C500 q3w (n = 828) or C600M40F600 d1, 8× q4w (n = 175). Primary end point was event-free survival (EFS); secondary end points were overall survival (OS), toxicity, translational research, and quality of life. Central tumor bank samples were evaluable in a representative collective (n = 772; 40%). Ki-67 was assessed centrally in hormone receptor-positive disease as a surrogate marker for the distinction of luminal A/B-like tumors., Results: Baseline characteristics were well balanced between study arms in both main study and central tumor bank subset. At 59-month median follow-up, superior efficacy of EC-Doc [versus FEC (a combination of 5-fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide)] was seen in EFS and OS: 5-year EFS: 89.8% versus 87.3% (P = 0.038); 5-year OS: 94.5% versus 92.8% (P = 0.034); both tests one-tailed. EC-Doc caused more toxicity. In hormone receptor-positive (HR)+ disease, only high-Ki-67 tumors (≥ 20%) derived significant benefit from taxane-based therapy: hazard ratio = 0.39 (95% CI 0.18-0.82) for EC-Doc versus FEC (test for interaction; P = 0.01)., Conclusion: EC-Doc significantly improved EFS and OS versus FEC in intermediate-risk BC (1-3 LNs) within all subgroups as defined by local pathology. In HR+ disease, patients with luminal A-like tumors may be potentially over-treated by taxane-based chemotherapy., Clinical Trial Number: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02115204., (© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

The actual predictive value of oestrogen receptor (ER) beta for treatment decisions in breast cancer is still unclear. Retrospective studies using preoperative systemic therapy (PST) revealed that chemotherapy but also endocrine therapy can lead to alterations in expression levels of ERalpha and progesterone receptor (PR). The main purpose of this study was to compare ERbeta expression levels before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy or endocrine therapy and to explore a possible predictive value of ERbeta. Matching 'baseline' biopsies and post-therapy surgical specimens of 69 breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant anthracycline- or taxane-based chemotherapy or with aromatase inhibitors were analyzed for expression levels of ERalpha, PR, total ERbeta (ERbetat), ERbeta1, ERbeta2 and the proliferation-related antigen Ki-67 using immunohistochemistry. A marked expression of ERbetat significantly correlates with low proliferation rates after PST (p=0.0013) and with response to it. Further most tumours decreased ERbeta1 expression with PST. A marked ERbeta2 expression was observed predominantly in responders and significantly decreased during chemotherapy (p=0.047). Results on ERalpha and PR corroborate findings of previous studies. Our data demonstrate that changes of ERbeta expression occur during PST and that total ERbeta expression and ERbeta2 may have a predictive value for PST.

Background: The ABCSG-12 trial investigated the efficacy of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH)analogs in combination with tamoxifen or anastrozole + or - zoledronic acid (4 mg, q6m for 3 years) in 1,803 premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer. After 48 months of follow-up, there was a 36% improvement in the disease-free survival (DFS) (recurrence-free survival 35%) using zoledronic acid. Based on these data, the costutility of zoledronic acid was calculated for the German healthcare system., Materials and Methods: Costs of surveillance, adverse effects, recurrence, contralateral breast cancer, metastasis, and end-of-life care were determined based on the Einheitlicher Bewertungsmabetastab (EBM 2009) and the diagnosis-related groups (DRG) system. Utilities were surveyed with a questionnaire (n = 95). Estimation of the cost-utility was made by calculating the incremental costeffectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), using a Markov model., Results: Including zoledronic acid as adjuvant therapy for 3 years resulted in total costs of euro 2,262. The use of zoledronic acid is dominant when clinical efficacy and quality of life are taken into consideration (- euro 45.83/QALY) (95% confidence interval (CI) - euro 1,838 to E 2,375; 0.02-0.41 QALY). The sensitivity analyses present with a probability of 90% that the cost per QALY gained are

Background: The influence of primary systemic therapy (PST) on the expression of relevant therapeutic markers is still under investigation., Patients and Methods: Corresponding "baseline" biopsies and post-chemotherapy surgical specimens from 87 patients treated with neoadjuvant anthracycline- or taxane-based chemotherapy were analysed for the expression of the oestrogen receptor (ER), the progesterone receptor (PR), the B-cell lymphoma protein 2 (Bcl-2), the v-erb-b2 erythroblastic leukemia viral oncogene homolog 2 (Her2/neu), the tumour protein p53 and the proliferation-related Ki-67 antigen., Results: The pathological response rate was 70%. Twenty-three tumours (26%) changed hormone receptor classification after chemotherapy (7, ER; 16 PR). A significant change was also observed for Her2/neu status. Eleven tumours which were positive prior to PST down-regulated Her2/neu after chemotherapy. The median Ki-67 index decreased from 30% before to 13% after treatment (p<0.01). Minor changes were observed in the expression of Bcl-2 and p53 (9%). Only the reduction of Ki-67 was associated with pathological response to PST., Conclusion: Her2/neu status as well as ER and PR status should be re-evaluated on post-chemotherapy surgical specimens since changes can be observed.

Purpose: Ovarian suppression with luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists is an effective adjuvant treatment for premenopausal women with estrogen receptor (ER) -positive breast cancer. Whereas monthly LHRH agonist therapy has been well established, the value of every-3-months (3-monthly) formulations is unclear., Patients and Methods: This randomized phase III trial was performed to compare the 3-monthly depot LHRH agonist leuprorelin acetate (LAD-3M; n = 299) and chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF; n = 300) in pre- or perimenopausal patients with ER-positive, node-positive breast cancer., Results: With a median follow-up of 5.8 years, recurrence-free survival was similar for patients treated with LAD-3M or CMF (hazard ratio [HR], 1.19; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.51; P = .15). There was no substantial heterogeneity in the relative treatment effect among subgroups defined by age, progesterone receptor (PR) status, nodal status, hormone levels, or menstrual recovery after treatment. Exploratory overall survival analysis favored LAD-3M (HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.99; P = .005). Chemotherapy-related adverse effects such as nausea, vomiting, and alopecia were more common with CMF, whereas symptoms of estrogen suppression such as hot flushes and sweating were initially more pronounced with LAD-3M., Conclusion: The 3-monthly depot LHRH-agonist leuprorelin acetate is an effective adjuvant treatment in premenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive, node-positive breast cancer that is not inferior to CMF.

This study was designed to evaluate the cardiac safety of the combined treatment of HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer patients with trastuzumab (Herceptin) plus epirubicin and cyclophosphamide (EC) in comparison with EC alone in HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer patients. Patients included those with metastatic breast cancer without any prior anti-HER2 treatment, anthracycline therapy, or any other chemotherapy for metastatic disease. This was a nonrandomized, prospective, dose-escalating, multicenter, open-label, phase I study in Germany. A control group of 23 patients received EC 90/600 mg/m2 3-weekly for six cycles (EC90 alone). A total of 26 HER2-positive patients were treated with trastuzumab, or H (2 mg/kg weekly after an initial loading dose of 4 mg/kg), and EC 60/600 mg/m2 3-weekly for six cycles (EC60+H); another 25 HER2-positive patients received H and EC 90/600 mg/m2 3-weekly for six cycles. Asymptomatic reductions in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of more than 10% points were detected in 12 patients (48%) treated with EC60+H and in 14 patients (56%) treated with EC90+H vs 6 patients (26%) in the EC90 alone cohort. LVEF decreases to <50% occurred in one patient in the EC60+H cohort and in two patients in the EC90+H cohort during the H monotherapy. No cardiac event occurred in the cohort with EC90 alone. The overall response rates for EC60+H and EC90+H were >60%, vs 26% for EC90 alone. The interim results of this study approve the cardiac safety of the combination of H with EC, with low risk of cardiac toxicity. The combination regimen revealed promising efficacy.

Developing primary systemic chemotherapy (PST) regimens that induce higher pathological complete response (pCR) rates remains a challenge in operable breast cancer. We recruited 77 eligible patients into a multicentre phase I/II study to evaluate the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), toxicity and efficacy of preoperative gemcitabine day 1 and 8 (800 mg/m(2) fixed dose), epirubicin and docetaxel on day 1 (doses escalated from 60 mg/m(2)) (GEDoc), repeated 3-weekly for 6 cycles with filgrastim support. MTD for epirubicin was 90 mg/m(2) and for docetaxel 75 mg/m(2). Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) included febrile neutropenia and grade 3 diarrhoea. Clinical response rate was 92%, pCR rate was 26%. 79% of patients had breast-conserving surgery. Grade 3/4 leucopenia was the main toxicity, occurring in 55 (87%) of 63 patients treated at the MTD. Non-haematological toxicity caused no serious clinical problems. In conclusion, GEDoc is highly active as PST. Efficacy and toxicity compare favourably with other effective combinations.

This phase II study of gemcitabine and epirubicin evaluated the activity and toxicity in advanced breast cancer. Female patients with stage IIIB or IV breast cancer received gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 and then epirubicin 15 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 of 28-day cycles. Thirty-five patients with stage IV disease, a median age of 59 years (range, 39-73), and a median Karnofsky performance status of 90 (range, 60-100) were enrolled. Fourteen (40.0%) patients received prior chemotherapy (12 adjuvant, 4 metastatic, 2 both). Of 35 evaluable patients, 10 had PR, for an overall RR of 28.6%, and 12 (34.3%) patients had SD. Median time to progression and overall survival were 5.8 months (95% CI, 3.4-9.5 months) and 17.1 months (95% CI, 11.2-19.9 months), respectively. WHO grade 3/4 neutropenia occurred in 51.5% of patients without febrile neutropenia, and grade 3 thrombocytopenia in 29.4% of patients without hemorrhage or platelet transfusions. The most common nonhematologic toxicities were grade 3 alopecia (38.2%) and nausea/vomiting (11.4%). There were no grade 4 nonhematologic toxicities. Gemcitabine plus epirubicin is active and well tolerated in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Future studies should continue to evaluate the impact of various schedules on outcome.

This prospective, parallel-group, dose-escalation study evaluated the cardiac safety of trastuzumab (Herceptin) plus epirubicin/cyclophosphamide (EC) in women with human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2)-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) and determined an epirubicin dose for further evaluation. HER2-positive patients received standard-dose trastuzumab plus epirubicin (60 or 90 mg/m(2))/cyclophosphamide (600 mg/m(2)) 3-weekly (EC60+H, n=26; EC90+H, n=25), for four to six cycles; 23 HER2-negative patients received EC alone (90/600 mg/m(2)) 3-weekly for six cycles (EC90). All patients underwent thorough cardiac evaluation. Two EC90+H-treated patients experienced symptomatic congestive heart failure 4.5 and 6 months after the end of chemotherapy. One EC60+H-treated patient experienced an asymptomatic decrease in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) to <50% 6 months after the end of chemotherapy. No such events occurred in control patients. Asymptomatic LVEF decreases of >10% points were detected in 12 (48%), 14 (56%) and 5 (24%) patients treated with EC60+H, EC90+H, and EC90. Objective response rates with EC60+H and EC90+H were >60%, and 26% for EC90 alone. These results indicate that trastuzumab may be combined with EC with manageable cardiotoxicity and promising efficacy.

Objectives: We performed a phase I-II study in patients with ovarian and other gynecological cancers to determine the dose-limiting toxicities, maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and efficacy of docetaxel/carboplatin., Methods: Thirty patients were treated in three cohorts with carboplatin (AUC 5) and escalating docetaxel (60, 75 and 90 mg/m2), administered intravenously on day 1, repeated every 3 weeks. Premedication consisted of 16 mg dexamethasone per os on day -1, and +1 and 4 mg intravenously before docetaxel., Results: A total of 6, 11 and 12 patients were eligible and treated on dose levels 1, 2 and 3, respectively. At docetaxel 90 mg/m2, febrile and prolonged neutropenia were dose-limiting, and 75 mg/m2 with carboplatin AUC 5 was considered the MTD. Prolonged neutropenia occurred in two, four and nine patients of dose levels 1-3, respectively, and febrile neutropenia in 2, 1, and 2 patients of dose level 1-3. Thrombocytopenia grade 4 was observed in one patient of dose level 1. Non-hematological toxicity including neuropathy was usually mild across all dose levels. Overall response rate was 73%. Median time to progression was 18.0 months, and median overall survival will exceed 24.4 months., Conclusions: Docetaxel/carboplatin can be safely administered to patients with gynecological cancer despite substantial myelotoxicity and appears to be active in the treatment of ovarian cancer. Low neurotoxicity offers an option for comparison with paclitaxel-containing regimens.

This phase II study evaluated the activity and toxicity of gemcitabine plus cisplatin as first-line treatment of patients with advanced ovarian cancer. Chemonaive patients >/=60-year-old with FIGO stage IIIC or IV epithelial ovarian carcinoma were enrolled. Patients received cisplatin 75 mg /m2 on day 1 and gemcitabine 1250 mg /m2 on day 1 (before cisplatin) and day 8 of a 21-day cycle. Of 44 female patients (median age, 70 years), 72.7% had stage IIIC disease and 67.4% had a Karnofsky performance status >/=80. Of the 37 response-evaluable patients (35 with measurable lesion[s] >/=2 cm), there were seven (18.9%) pathologic complete responses, two (5.4%) pathologic partial responses, two (5.4%) clinical complete responses, and 12 (32.4%) clinical partial responses, for an overall response rate of 62.2% (95% CI, 44.8%-77.5%), and a pathologic response rate of 24.3% (95% CI, 11.8%-41.2%). Median survival was 27.7 months (95% CI, 14.3-40.8 months). Grade 3/4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia occurred in 59.5% and 30.2% of patients, respectively, with neutropenic fever in one patient. Grade 3 nausea /vomiting and alopecia occurred in 25.6% and 9.5% of patients, respectively. We conclude that gemcitabine plus cisplatin is active and feasible as first-line treatment of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer in patients >/=60 years. Further clinical trials adding gemcitabine to current standard, first-line treatment seem warranted in younger as well as older patients.

Purpose: The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of leuprorelin acetate in adjuvant treatment in comparison to standard chemotherapy with CMF in premenopausal, estrogen-receptor-positive or unknown, node-positive patients with early breast cancer., Patients and Methods: The patients were randomly assigned to receive either 2 years of hormone ablation with leuprorelin acetate 11.25 mg as a subcutaneous injection every three months or six courses of CMF (cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m2, methotrexate 40 mg/m2, fluorouracil 600 mg/m2, days 1 and 8, q 4 weeks). The primary study end-point was recurrence-free survival (RFS) after 2 years. Secondary end-points included overall survival, adverse events and hormonal suppression., Results: Between 1995 and 1999, a total of 589 patients with breast cancer were randomized to treatment with leuprorelin acetate or CMF. The data of 227 patients were available for this first interim analysis. One hundred and ten and 117 patients were assigned to leuprorelin acetate and chemotherapy, respectively. Both treatment arms were well balanced for baseline characteristics. So far, no difference between the groups has emerged with respect to recurrence-free or overall survivaL Suppression of serum estradiol levels and menstruation was less marked in the CMF-group compared to the leuprorelin arm. The most common adverse events were low-grade hot flushes, weight gain and increased sweating in the leuprorelin-treated patients and alopecia, nausea and vomiting in the CMF-group., Conclusion: According to these preliminary results, ovarian suppression with leuprorelin acetate was as effective as standard chemotherapy for premenopausal women with hormone-sensitive, node-positive early breast cancer.

Radical debulking surgery allows for optimal cytoreduction in less than 50% of patients with advanced ovarian cancer. In spite of highly efficient chemotherapeutic regimens, the prognosis of patients with residual tumor masses larger than 1 cm in diameter following staging laparotomy is very poor. This observation led to the initiation of numerous trials evaluating the feasibility and efficiency of the use of primary chemotherapy followed by interval laparotomy in women with advanced ovarian cancer. The available data is presented and discussed in this review.

We report on the efficacy and toxicity of a sequential high-dose therapy with peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) support in 85 patients with high-risk stage II/III breast cancer. There were 71 patients with more than nine tumour-positive axillary lymph nodes. An induction therapy of two cycles of ifosfamide (total dose, 7.5 g m(-2)) and epirubicin (120 mg m(-2)) was given, and PBSC were harvested during G-CSF-supported leucocyte recovery following the second cycle. The PBSC-supported high-dose chemotherapy consisted of two cycles of ifosfamide (total dose, 12,000 mg m(-2)), carboplatin (900 mg m(-2)) and epirubicin (180 mg m(-2)). Patients were autografted with a median number of 3.7 x 10(6) CD34+ cells kg(-1) (range, 1.9-26.5 x 10(6)) resulting in haematological reconstitution within approximately 2 weeks following high-dose therapy. The toxicity was moderate in general, and there was no treatment-related toxic death. Twenty-one patients relapsed between 3 and 30 months following the last cycle of high-dose therapy (median, 11 months). The probability of disease-free and overall survival at 4 years were 60% and 83%, respectively. According to a multivariate analysis, patients with stage II disease had a significantly better probability of disease-free survival (74%) in comparison to patients with stage III disease (36%). The probability of disease-free survival was also significantly better for patients with oestrogen receptor-positive tumours (70%) compared to patients with receptor-negative ones (40%). Bone marrow samples collected from 52 patients after high-dose therapy were examined to evaluate the prognostic relevance of isolated tumour cells. The proportion of patients presenting with tumour cell-positive samples did not change in comparison to that observed before high-dose therapy (65% vs 71%), but a decrease in the incidence and concentration of tumour cells was observed over time after high-dose therapy. This finding was true for patients with relapse and for those in remission, which argues against a prognostic significance of isolated tumour cells in bone marrow. In conclusion, sequential high-dose chemotherapy with PBSC support can be safely administered to patients with high-risk stage II/III breast cancer. Further intensification of the therapy, including the addition of non-cross resistant drugs or immunological approaches such as the use of antibodies against HER-2/NEU, may be envisaged for patients with stage III disease and hormone receptor-negative tumours.

We report on the efficacy and toxicity of a sequential high-dose therapy with peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) support in 107 patients with high-risk stage II/III breast cancer. There were 90 patients with more than 9 tumour-positive axillary lymph nodes. An induction therapy of two cycles of ifosfamide (total dose, 7,500 mg/m(2)) and epirubicin (120 mg/m(2)) was given, and PBSC were harvested during granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF)-supported leukocyte recovery following the second cycle. The PBSC-supported high-dose chemotherapy consisted of two cycles of ifosfamide (total dose 12,000 mg/m(2)), carboplatin (900 mg/m(2)) and epirubicin (180 mg/m(2)). Patients were autografted with a median number of 4.1 x 10(6) CD34+ cells/kg (range 1.9-26.5 x 10(6)), resulting in haematological reconstitution within approximately 2 weeks following high-dose therapy. The toxicity was moderate in general, and there was no treatment-related toxic death. Twenty-nine patients (27.1% of all patients) relapsed between 3 and 46 months following the last cycle of high-dose therapy (median 15 months). The probability of disease-free and overall survival at 3 years was 56% and 83%, respectively. A multivariate analysis showed that patients with stage II disease had a significantly better probability of disease-free survival (71%) in comparison with patients with stage III disease (30%). The probability of disease-free survival was also significantly better for patients with oestrogen receptor-positive tumours (62%) compared with patients with receptor-negative ones (40%). In conclusion, sequential high-dose chemotherapy with PBSC support can be safely administered to patients with high-risk stage II/III breast cancer. Further intensification of the therapy including the addition of non-cross-resistant drugs or immunological approaches may be envisaged for patients with stage III disease and hormone receptor-negative tumours.

Patients with high-risk breast cancer may benefit from dose-escalated chemotherapy. We studied toxicity and therapeutic efficacy of sequential high-dose therapy consisting of two cycles of ifosfamide 12,000 mg/m2, carboplatin 900 mg/m2, and epirubicin 180 mg/m2 (ICE) with peripheral blood stem cell support. Ninety-one patients with advanced breast cancer were included. Fifty-one patients with stage II/III disease and 10 or more tumor-positive axillary lymph nodes received high-dose therapy as adjuvant treatment; the remaining 40 patients were treated for metastatic disease. Peripheral blood stem cells were collected following granulocyte colony-stimulating factor-supported induction chemotherapy. In 68 patients, induction chemotherapy included two cycles of ifosfamide 7,500 mg/m2 and epirubicin 120 mg/m2, while 23 patients received one cycle of paclitaxel (Taxol; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Princeton, NJ) 135 mg/m2, ifosfamide 6,000 mg/m2, and epirubicin 90 mg/m2. One hundred ninety-two cycles of ICE were supported with a median of 3.5 x 10(6) CD34+ cells/kg body weight (range, 1.7 to 38 x 10(6) CD34+ cells/kg body weight), which resulted in rapid hematologic reconstitution with recovery times, for a median neutrophil count of 0.5 x 10(9)/L of 13 days (range, 6 to 20 days) and for a median platelet count greater than 20 x 10(9)L of 9 days (range, 5 to 24 days). Seven patients received only one cycle of ICE because of progressive disease (in two patients with metastatic disease), central nervous system toxicity (one patient), cardiac toxicity (one patient), severe enterocolitis (one patient), development of human leukocyte antigen antibodies (one patient), and wish to withdraw from the study (one patient). Seventeen patients with metastatic disease received an additional high-dose cycle consisting of the non-cross-resistant agents thiotepa 600 mg/m2, etoposide 1,500 mg/m2, and paclitaxel 165 mg/m2. In patients treated adjuvantly, the probability of disease-free survival was 64% at 47 months, which compares favorably with results of conventional treatment protocols, with a 47% event-free probability at the same time period. The probability of progression-free survival in patients with metastatic disease was 18% at 44 months. In conclusion, sequential high-dose therapy with peripheral blood stem cell support in patients with high-risk breast cancer can be administered safely and offers a potential benefit in the adjuvant setting.

The purpose of this phase II study was to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy and toxicity of a tandem or triple high-dose chemotherapy (HDC) with autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation (PBSCT) in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) as first line chemotherapy. Conventional chemotherapy consisted of two cycles of epirubicin 120 mg/m2 and ifosfamide 7500 mg/m2 in the case of tandem HDC and one cycle of paclitaxel 135 mg/m2, epirubicin 90 mg/m2 and ifosfamide 6000 mg/m2 in the case of triple HDC. Tandem HDC was composed of two cycles of epirubicin 180 mg/m2, ifosfamide 12000 mg/m2 and carboplatin 900 mg/m2. In the case of triple HDC, paclitaxel 180 mg/m2, etoposide 1500 mg/m2 and thiotepa 600 mg/m2 was added as the third cycle. Patients with tandem HDC (n = 20) were evaluable for both survival and toxicity, and patients with triple HDC (n = 21) only for toxicity because of short-term follow-up. Both tandem and triple HDC were well tolerated and could be safely administered. Non-hematological WHO grade 3 or 4 toxicities were mucositis (8), temporary renal insufficiency (1), myocardial infarction (1), and neuropathy (1). No toxic death occurred. The Kaplan-Meier estimates for 44-months without progression and the overall survival were 12% and 38% respectively. The median survival was 22 months (95% CI: 7.4-51.7 months) and the median progression-free interval 14 months (95% CI: 5.1-43.7 months). In a population with an unfavorable prognosis, tandem HDC showed similar efficacy as to that described in other phase II studies. Triple HDC seems not to improve patient outcome compared to tandem HDC, but a long-term follow up is required.

We report on a patient with metastatic breast cancer confined to visceral (lung and pleura) site. A high-dose chemotherapy with peripheral progenitor blood cell transplantation was indicated. In contrast to other 24 patients two induction cycle chemotherapies (intensive dosis of Epirubicin/Ifosfamid/GCSF) didn't show any remission of metastases. Therefore a high dose chemotherapy with peripheral progenitor blood cell transplantation was not indicated any more. This patient had lung and pleura metastases and showed a complete remission after the following conventional chemotherapy (Carboplatin/Toxol) persisting more than 7 months. Non-responder after induction therapies have a poor prognosis but salvage therapy may be successful anyway. Mammary neoplasms can be sensible on special chemotherapy drugs only.

We evaluated the therapeutic efficacy and toxicity of a tandem high-dose therapy with peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) support in 40 patients with high-risk, primary breast cancer (stage II-III) and involvement of ten or more positive axillary lymph nodes. Their median age was 44 years (range 23-56). Two cycles of cytotoxic chemotherapy with ifosfamide (10000 mg/m2) and epirubicin (100 mg/m2) were administered. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) was given to hasten neutrophil reconstitution and to mobilise PBSC during marrow recovery. Leukaphereses were performed following the first and/or second cycle. Tandem high-dose therapy consisted of two cycles with ifosfamide (15 or 12 g/m2) and epirubicin (150 mg/m2), while carboplatin (900 mg/m2) was added for the last 24 patients included. Using an immunocytochemical method, two of 11 patients had cytokeratin-positive tumour cells in three leukapheresis products that were collected following the first G-CSF-supported cycle with ifosfamide and epirubicin, whereas only two harvests obtained following the second cycle in 26 patients contained cytokeratin-positive tumour cells. The number of CD34+ cells/kg re-infused following both high-dose cycles was similar (4.20 +/- 0.29 x 10(6), first cycle and 5.25 +/- 0.63 x 10(6), second cycle), and no notable difference was noted in the speed of haematological reconstitution. An absolute neutrophil count (ANC) of 0.5 x 10(9)/1 was reached after a median time of 13 days, while an unsupported platelet count of 20.0 x 10(9)/1 was achieved after a median time of 8 (first cycle) and 9 (second cycle) days post-transplantation. Patients autografted with more than 7.5 x 10(6) CD34+ cells/kg had platelet counts above 20 x 10(9)/1 within less than 10 days. 6 patients relapsed between 7 and 11 months (median 8 months) post-transplantation. 37 patients are alive and in remission with a median follow-up time of 11 months (range 1-38). This translates into a probability of disease-free survival (DFS) of 77% (95% CI 32-95%) at 38 months. The probability of overall survival is 85%, since 3 patients with local relapse achieved a second complete remission following surgery and involved-field radiotherapy. In conclusion, a sequential high-dose therapy including ifosfamide, epirubicin, carboplatin and PBSC support is well tolerated and effective in patients with high-risk primary breast cancer. Involved-field irradiation should be performed post-transplantation to reduce the risk of local relapse.