Search

Background: Combination chemotherapy can cause greater tumour cell kill if the drug dose is not compromised, while sequential single agent chemotherapy may allow for greater dose intensity and treatment time, potentially meaning greater benefit from each single agent. In addition, sequentially using single agents might cause less toxicity and impairment of quality of life, but it is not known whether this might compromise survival time., Objectives: To assess the effect of combination chemotherapy compared to the same drugs given sequentially in women with metastatic breast cancer., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group Specialised Register, using the search terms "advanced breast cancer" and "chemotherapy", MEDLINE and EMBASE on 31 October 2013. The World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov were also searched (22 March 2012)., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials of combination chemotherapy compared to the same drugs used sequentially in women with metastatic breast cancer in the first-, second- or third-line setting., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors independently extracted data from published trials. Hazard ratios (HR) were derived from time-to-event outcomes where possible, and a fixed-effect model was used for meta-analysis. Response rates were analysed as dichotomous variables (risk ratios (RR)), and toxicity and quality of life data were extracted where available., Main Results: Twelve trials reporting on nine treatment comparisons (2317 patients randomised) were identified. The majority of trials (10 trials) had an unclear or high risk of bias. Time-to-event data were collected for nine trials for overall survival and eight trials for progression-free survival. All 12 trials reported results for tumour response. In the 12 trials there were 1023 deaths in 2317 women randomised. There was no difference in overall survival, with an overall HR of 1.04 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.16; P = 0.45), and no significant heterogeneity. This result was consistent in the four subgroups analysed (risk of bias, line of chemotherapy, type of schema of chemotherapy, and relative dose intensity). In particular, there was no difference in survival according to the type of schema of chemotherapy, that is whether chemotherapy was given on disease progression or after a set number of cycles. In the eight trials that reported progression-free survival, 678 women progressed out of the 886 women randomised. The combination arm had a higher risk of progression than the sequential arm (HR 1.16; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.31; P = 0.01) with no significant heterogeneity. This result was consistent in all subgroups. Overall tumour response rates were higher in the combination arm (RR 1.13; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.24; P = 0.008) but there was significant heterogeneity for this outcome across the trials. In the seven trials that reported treatment-related deaths, there was no significant difference between the two arms, although the CIs were very wide due to the small number of events (RR 1.53; 95% CI 0.71 to 3.29; P = 0.28). The risk of febrile neutropenia was higher in the combination arm (RR 1.32; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.65; P = 0.01). There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of neutropenia, nausea and vomiting, or treatment-related deaths. Overall quality of life showed no difference between the two groups, but only three trials reported this outcome., Authors' Conclusions: Sequential single agent chemotherapy has a positive effect on progression-free survival, whereas combination chemotherapy has a higher response rate and a higher risk of febrile neutropenia in metastatic breast cancer. There is no difference in overall survival time between these treatment strategies, both overall and in the subgroups analysed. In particular, there was no difference in survival according to the schema of chemotherapy (giving chemotherapy on disease progression or after a set number of cycles) or according to the line of chemotherapy (first-line versus second- or third-line). Generally this review supports the recommendations by international guidelines to use sequential monotherapy unless there is rapid disease progression.

Background: Shared Decision Making (SDM) is widely accepted as the preferred method for reaching treatment decisions in the oncology setting including those about clinical trial participation: however, there is some disagreement between researchers over the components of SDM. Specific standardized coding systems are needed to help overcome this difficulty., Objective: The first objective was to describe the development of an oncology specific SDM coding system, the DAS-O. The second objective was to provide reliability and validity data supporting the DAS-O., Setting and Participants: Consultation data were available from tertiary cancer center out patient oncology clinics in: Australia, New Zealand (ANZ), Switzerland, Germany and Austria (SGA). Patients were women with a confirmed diagnosis of early stage breast cancer. Reliability data were from 18 randomly selected coded transcripts drawn from ANZ and SGA. Concurrent validity data are from 55 (ANZ) consultations., Measurement: Inter and Intra rater reliability data was evaluated using Kappa correlation statistics and correlation coefficients. Correlation coefficients were used to assess concurrent validity between the DAS-O and two other SDM coding systems, OPTION and DSAT., Results: Inter and Intra rater reliability for the system were high with average Kappas of 0.58 and 0.65 respectively. Correlation coefficients between DAS-O and OPTION was 0.73 and >0.5 for DSAT., Conclusions: We have developed a reliable and valid coding system for identifying and rating the quality of SDM in breast cancer consultations., (© 2010 The Authors. Health Expectations © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.)

Purpose: To estimate scenarios for survival for women with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) who are starting chemotherapy., Patients and Methods: We sought randomized, first-line chemotherapy trials for MBC published from 1999 to 2009. We recorded median progression-free survival (PFS) and median overall survival (OS) and extracted the following percentiles (represented scenario) from each OS curve: 90th (worst-case), 75th (lower-typical), 25th (upper-typical), and 10th (best-case). We also estimated these scenarios for each OS curve by multiplying its median by four simple multiples: 0.25 (worst-case), 0.5 (lower-typical), 2 (upper-typical), and 3 (best-case). Estimates were deemed accurate if they were within 0.75 to 1.33 times the actual value., Results: From 36 trials (13,083 women), the mean for median PFS was 7.6 months (interquartile range [IQR], 6.0 to 9.0 months), the mean for median OS was 21.7 months (IQR,18.2 to 24.0 months), and the mean for the ratio of median OS to median PFS was 3.0 (IQR, 2.4 to 3.5). The mean for each OS scenario was worst-case, 6.3 months (IQR, 4.8 to 7.5 months); lower-typical, 11.9 months (IQR, 9.9 to 13.2 months); upper-typical, 36.2 months (IQR, 31.1 to 41.3 months); and best-case, 55.8 months (IQR, 47.5 to 60.2 months). Simple multiples of the median gave accurate estimates of the worst-case scenario in 73% of OS curves, lower-typical in 97%, upper-typical in 95%, and best-case in 96%. OS was longer in trials with higher proportions of estrogen receptor-positive tumors (P = .001) and in trials of trastuzumab-treated human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive tumors (P = .001)., Conclusion: Simple multiples of an OS curve's median can accurately estimate typical (half to double the median), best-case (triple the median), and worst-case (one quarter of the median) scenarios for survival.

Objective: Treatment decisions in advanced breast cancer are complex, with enhanced quality of life and survival among important treatment goals. Patients with metastatic breast cancer face the decision of whether or not to have chemotherapy, and many wish to be involved in this decision. We report the development and evaluation of a decision aid (DA) designed to assist patients facing this treatment decision., Design and Sample: Women with metastatic breast cancer (n = 17)and medical oncologists in Australia and Canada (n = 7) were invited to evaluate the DA., Intervention: A DA was developed for patients with hormone resistant metastatic breast cancer considering chemotherapy. The DA presented options of supportive care, with or without chemotherapy. Potential benefits and side effects of different chemotherapy regimens, and evidence-based prognostic estimates were described,and a values clarification exercise included., Main Outcome Measures: Patient questionnaires evaluating information and decision involvement preferences, attitudes toward the DA and oncologist feedback regarding attitudes toward the DA., Results: Seventeen patients participated; fifteen desired as much information about their illness as possible; sixteen wished to be actively involved in the decision-making process. The majority rated the DA as highly acceptable, clear and informative, and would recommend it to others facing this treatment decision., Conclusion: This is the first DA for patients with advanced metastatic breast cancer considering chemotherapy. A randomized trial is underway to evaluate its role in clinical decision-making.

Background: To evaluate the impact of an educational booklet on women's knowledge of and willingness to participate in a randomized clinical trial of treatment for breast cancer., Materials and Methods: Women undergoing surgery for newly diagnosed early stage breast cancer were randomized to receive, or not, an information booklet explaining the need for and manner in which randomized trials are conducted., Results: Eighty-three women with newly diagnosed early stage breast cancer completed a questionnaire assessing attitudes to random clinical trials (RCTs) and were randomized to receive usual information treatment options provided from their oncologist, or the educational booklet in addition to usual information from their oncologist (42 usual information, 41 booklet). Fewer women who received the clinical trials booklet (40% versus 47%) would consider participating in the hypothetical clinical trial (P = 0.6). Mean knowledge scores increased for both groups; moreover, women who did not receive the booklet showed similar improvements to women who received the booklet [mean difference 0.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.66 to 0.83]. In a multivariate analysis women who would consider participating in the clinical trial were more anxious [odds ratio (OR) 5.9, P = 0.02] had involved lymph nodes (OR 5.8, P = 0.02) and were less influenced by negative aspects of clinical trials (OR 7.7, P = 0.0001). After adjustment for these variables women who received the educational booklet were significantly less likely to consider trial participation (OR 0.22, P = 0.05)., Conclusions: Educating women about clinical trials in this manner appears ineffective in improving recruitment to RCTs. Women appear to be more influenced by their perception of risk than understanding. This finding has ethical implications for communication of information about RCTs.

Clinical audits suggest that prognosis is often not discussed with cancer patients, and cancer patients often over- or underestimate their prognosis. Doctors wish to convey information honestly and sensitively, but are often unsure how best to achieve this. An evidence base and guidelines in this area are lacking. This study aimed to obtain patient and health professional views on optimal ways of presenting prognosis to patients with metastatic breast cancer. Qualitative methods were used to generate participant views and experiences. Seventeen patients and 13 health professionals working in cancer care participated in structured interviews, which were audio-taped and transcribed. Sampling was discontinued when informational redundancy was achieved. The transcribed interviews were content analysed by a trained assessor using the constant-comparative method. Seven primary themes were identified, including: communication within a caring, trusting, long-term relationship; open and repeated negotiations for patient preferences for information; clear, straightforward presentation of prognosis where desired; strategies to ensure patient understanding; encouragement of hope and a sense of control; consistency of communication within the multi-disciplinary team; communication with other members of the family. Communication about prognosis in a metastatic setting requires considerable resources from both patients and doctors. Nevertheless, a number of useful strategies were identified. A quantitative study obtaining feedback from a large and representative sample of patients with metastatic cancer is now in progress, to confirm patient preferences for the communication styles identified in this qualitative study.

Purpose: To explore the association at different time points in the trajectory of breast cancer care, between anxiety, knowledge, and attitudes, on women's willingness to participate in randomized clinical trials., Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional survey was undertaken among women attending a breast clinic for screening mammography or diagnostic assessment plus women with newly diagnosed breast cancer to assess attitudes toward and willingness to participate in randomized clinical trials of breast cancer treatment., Results: Five hundred forty-five women completed questionnaires assessing knowledge of and attitudes toward randomized clinical trials. The mean age of respondents was 48.9 years (SD, 11.3 years). Thirty-three percent of women would consider participating in a clinical trial if they had breast cancer. Women with breast cancer (31%) were significantly more likely to decline to participate than women attending for screening mammography (15%) or diagnostic assessment (15%, P =.0002). Women who might consider participating in a randomized clinical trial were more knowledgeable about randomized trials (mean difference, 0.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.2 to 1.2; P =.003). In a multivariate analysis, women who would consider participating in a randomized trial were younger (odds ratio [OR], 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93 to 0.99), more likely to want an active role in decision-making (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.3 to 7.6), and reported a greater impact from the positive aspects of clinical trials (OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.3 to 3.8) and less impact from the negative aspects of clinical trials (OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.3 to 3.2)., Conclusion: These findings suggest that women who have a better understanding of issues about clinical trials have more favorable attitudes toward randomized trials and are more willing to consider participation in a clinical trial.

Objectives: To determine preference for prognostic information in women with early breast cancer., Design: Cross sectional survey., Participants: 100 women with early stage breast cancer attending six teaching hospitals in Sydney, Australia., Main Outcome Measures: Women's preference for prognostic information., Results: This study identifies new elements to consider in the prognostic consultation. Whilst 91% of women wanted to know their prognosis prior to commencing adjuvant treatment, 63% wanted their cancer specialist to check with them first before giving it. Seventy-seven percent wanted to be asked if they would like a second opinion. Seventy-five percent wanted to know about complementary therapies. Most wanted their cancer specialist to check their understanding, provide an opportunity to ask questions, and explain medical terms (98%). The majority wanted information summarized (94%), supported by published information (88%) and written down (79%). Ninety-seven percent wanted their fears and concerns listened to and 79% wanted emotional support. In addition 80% of women wanted their cancer specialist to tell them where they could go to get additional emotional support for themselves and their families. Seventy-two percent of women wanted their cancer specialist to make sure they had a relative or friend with them., Conclusions: Data from this study suggests that a variety of techniques are needed to communicate prognosis. Whilst acknowledging individual women's preferences, and not wanting to appear prescriptive, recommendations emerge for effective discussion of prognosis with women with early stage breast cancer.

Objectives: To determine the degree to which women with early breast cancer understand the prognostic information communicated by clinicians after breast cancer diagnosis, and their preferences for how this information is presented., Design: Cross-sectional survey conducted within two months of breast cancer diagnosis, using a self-administered written questionnaire., Participants and Setting: One hundred women attending five Sydney teaching hospitals and one country hospital, who were diagnosed with early stage breast cancer between January and December 1997., Results: The 100 respondents represented 70% of the 143 women originally approached to participate. Many respondents did not fully understand the language typically used by surgeons and cancer specialists to describe prognosis: 53% could not calculate risk reduction (with adjuvant therapy) relative to absolute risk; 73% did not understand the term "median" survival; and 33% believed a cancer specialist could predict an individual patient's outcome. Women in professional/paraprofessional occupations understood more prognostic information than nonprofessional women. There was no agreement on the descriptive equivalent of a "30%" risk, nor the numerical interpretation of a "good" chance of survival. Forty-three per cent of women preferred positively framed messages (e.g., "chance of cure"), and 33% negatively framed messages (e.g., "chance of relapse"). The information women most wanted was that relating to probability of cure, staging of their cancer, chances of treatment being successful, and 10-year survival figures with and without adjuvant therapy., Conclusions: Our results suggest that misunderstanding is responsible for women's confusion about breast cancer prognosis. Clinicians should use a variety of techniques to communicate prognosis and risk, and need to verify that the information has been understood.

Purpose: To determine the place of single-agent paclitaxel compared with nonanthracycline combination chemotherapy as front-line therapy in metastatic breast cancer., Patients and Methods: Patients with previously untreated metastatic breast cancer were randomized to receive either paclitaxel 200 mg/m(2) intravenously (IV) over 3 hours for eight cycles (24 weeks) or standard cyclophosphamide 100 mg/m(2)/d orally on days 1 to 14, methotrexate 40 mg/m(2) IV on days 1 and 8, fluorouracil 600 mg/m(2) IV on days 1 and 8, and prednisone 40 mg/m(2)/d orally on days 1 to 14 (CMFP) for six cycles (24 weeks) with epirubicin recommended as second-line therapy., Results: A total of 209 eligible patients were randomized with a median survival duration of 17.3 months for paclitaxel and 13.9 months for CMFP. Multivariate analysis showed that patients who received paclitaxel survived significantly longer than those who received CMFP (P =.025). Paclitaxel produced significantly less severe leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, mucositis, documented infections (all P <.001), nausea or vomiting (P =.003), and fever without documented infection (P =.007), and less hospitalization for febrile neutropenia than did CMFP (P =.001). Alopecia, peripheral neuropathy, and myalgia or arthralgia were more severe with paclitaxel (all P <.0001). Overall, quality of life was similar for both treatments (P > = .07)., Conclusion: Initial paclitaxel was associated with significantly less myelosuppression and fewer infections, with longer survival and similar quality of life and control of metastatic breast cancer compared with CMFP.

Background: Doctors' discomfort with the randomized trial process may significantly impact on accrual rates to clinical trials. However, there is little information regarding factors that influence accrual to clinical trials in Australia. The present study examines Australian cancer specialists' attitudes towards and participation in current breast cancer clinical trials., Methods: All medical and radiation oncologists across Australia and surgeons listed as participants in the Australian and New Zealand Breast Cancer Trials Group were sent questionnaires assessing attitudes towards and participation in current clinical trials for early stage breast cancer., Results: The response rate was 71% (269/381). The mean age of respondents was 45 years and 85% were male. Respondents estimated that a mean of 5.2 (SD = 8.2) of their patients had been enrolled in a breast cancer clinical trial in the previous 12 months. Participation (in any trial) by medical oncologists (60.6%, 95% CI 54.5-66.7%) and surgeons (63.1%, 95% CI 57.1-69.1%) was significantly higher than for radiation oncologists (43.2%, 95% CI 37-49.4%, P = 0.03). The major barriers to participation in current breast cancer trials were lack of resources (44%) or issues related to specific trials (44%; e.g. relevance of the research questions or choice of standard therapies)., Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that efforts to improve doctors' participation in clinical trials need to address a number of issues. More empirical research is needed to evaluate new strategies to raise participation in clinical trials.

When administered as a single agent to previously treated patients with advanced breast cancer, paclitaxel (Taxol; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Princeton, NJ) has good activity. This trial was undertaken to compare paclitaxel with standard chemotherapy as front-line treatment for this disease. Patients with measurable or evaluable metastatic breast cancer, no prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 2 were randomized to receive either paclitaxel 200 mg/m2 intravenously over 3 hours for eight cycles over 24 weeks or standard treatment with oral cyclophosphamide 100 mg/m2/d days 1 to 14, intravenous methotrexate 40 mg/m2 days 1 and 8, intravenous 5-fluorouracil 600 mg/m2 days 1 and 8, and oral prednisone 40 mg/m2 daily days 1 to 14 (CMFP) for six cycles over 24 weeks. Patients whose disease progressed or relapsed were recommended for second-line therapy with epirubicin. Accrual has been completed with 209 patients randomized, and an interim analysis of the first 100 patients is reported here. Analysis of quality of life, assessed by the linear analogue scale and overall quality of life indices, is ongoing. Objective response occurred in 31% (confidence interval, 19% to 45%) with paclitaxel and 35% (confidence interval, 22% to 51%) with CMFP, with stable disease in an additional 33% and 29%, respectively. Median time to progression was 5.5 months with paclitaxel and 6.4 months with CMFP, with a median survival of 17.3 months for patients treated with paclitaxel and 11.3 months for those given CMFP. Grades 3 and 4 neutropenia occurred in 64% of patients with paclitaxel and 63% with CMFP. However, febrile neutropenia was the primary reason for hospitalization in 1% of paclitaxel courses, compared with 8% with CMFP. Major infections (World Health Organization grade 4) were seen in 7% of patients treated with CMFP, but in none of those given paclitaxel. Moderate or severe mucositis occurred in 13% of paclitaxel and 27% of CMFP patients. Alopecia and peripheral neuropathy were more common with paclitaxel. Quality of life assessments in the first 100 patients suggest better overall results for those treated with paclitaxel compared with CMFP. Preliminary analyses suggest that single-agent paclitaxel is well tolerated and provides control of metastatic cancer comparable to that of CMFP combination therapy when used as front-line therapy in an outpatient setting.

Purpose: To determine whether a strategy of adding medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) to tamoxifen (TAM) is superior to the substitution of MPA for TAM among women with advanced breast cancer and disease progressing on TAM. To assess the patterns or response and subsequent progression in sites and tissues according to prior involvement and treatment., Patients and Methods: Two-hundred-fifteen postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer progressing on TAM after receiving TAM for at least six months were randomized: 109 to add MPA 500 mg/day orally (TAM + MPA), and 106 to stop TAM and to substitute MPA., Results: There were no significant differences between the groups with respect to complete plus partial response rates: TAM + MPA 10%, MPA 9%, median time to progression TAM + MPA 3.0 months, MPA 4.5 months, or median overall survival, TAM + MPA 17.2 months, MPA 18.4 months. In a multivariate model, prognostic factors significant for a shorter time to disease progression were worse for performance status, involvement of more than one tissue, prior radiotherapy, and shorter time from recurrence after primary therapy to randomization. Adjusting for these factors, treatment with TAM + MPA was associated with a higher relative risk for disease progression, with a hazards ratio of 1.31, but this was not significant (95% confidence interval, 0.98 to 1.74; P = .067). However, in an exploratory analysis, the time to disease progression, among patients with progesterone receptor positive (PR+) tumors, was 6.3 months with MPA versus 2.9 months with TAM + MPA, with a hazards ratio of 1.92 (95% confidence interval, 1.12 to 3.32; P = .02). There was a significant interaction, P = .04, between PR status and treatment, indicating an advantage to treatment substitution for those who have PR+ tumors. Tumor response occurred in 14% of assessed metastatic sites. Subsequent progression occurred in a new tissue alone in 13% of patients, in both new and previously involved (old) tissues in 76%, and in old tissues only in 11%. In 23% of patients, progression occurred only at a new site, in 50% at both old and new sites, and in 27% only at old sites. No significant differences in the patterns of response or progression were seen in the different treatment groups., Conclusion: Among women with breast cancer whose disease is progressing after at least six months of treatment with TAM, there is no advantage to maintaining TAM when MPA is to be given. An overall effect of treatment on the pattern of failure at old sites or at new sites or tissues cannot be discerned.

When administered as a single agent in pretreated patients with advanced breast cancer, paclitaxel (Taxol) exhibits remarkable antitumor activity. This trial was undertaken to compare paclitaxel with standard chemotherapy as front-line therapy for this disease. Patients with measurable or evaluable metastatic breast cancer, no prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 2 were randomized to receive paclitaxel 200 mg/m2 intravenously over 3 hours for eight cycles (6 months) or standard treatment with oral cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 100 mg/m2/d days 1 through 14, intravenous methotrexate 40 mg/ m2 days 1 and 8, intravenous 5-fluorouracil 600 mg/m2 days 1 and 8, and oral prednisolone 40 mg/m2/d (CMFP) days 1 through 14 for six cycles (6 months). Patients whose disease progressed or relapsed were recommended to receive second-line epirubicin. Accrual has been completed with 208 patients randomized, but a preplanned interim analysis of the first 100 patients is reported here. Analysis of quality of life, assessed by a linear analogue scale and overall quality of life indices, is ongoing. Objective response occurred in 31% (confidence interval, 19% to 45%) with paclitaxel and 35% (confidence interval, 22% to 51%) with CMFP with stable disease in an additional 33% and 29%, respectively. Median time to progression was 5.5 months for paclitaxel-treated patients and 6.4 months for those given CMFP, with median survival durations of 17.3 and 11.3 months, respectively. Grades 3 and 4 neutropenia occurred in 64% of patients treated with paclitaxel and in 63% treated with CMFP. However, febrile neutropenia was the primary reason for hospitalization in 1% of paclitaxel courses, compared with 8% of CMFP courses. Nine percent of the patients had major infections with CMFP, but none were seen with paclitaxel. Moderate or severe mucositis occurred in 13% of paclitaxel-treated and 27% of CMFP-treated patients. Alopecia and peripheral neuropathy were more common with paclitaxel. Quality of life assessments in the first 100 patients suggest better overall results on paclitaxel treatment as compared with CMFP. Preliminary analyses suggest that single-agent paclitaxel is well tolerated and provides comparable control of metastatic cancer to CMFP combination therapy when used as front-line treatment.

Background: The addition of low-dose prednisone (p) to the adjuvant regimen of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil (CMF) allowed patients to receive a larger dose of cytotoxics when compared with those on CMF alone. However, disease-free survival and overall survival were similar for the two groups. To test the hypothesis that low-dose prednisone might influence the efficacy of the cytotoxic regimen used, the toxicity profiles of the two treatment regimens and the patterns of treatment failure (relapse, second malignancy, or death) were examined., Patients and Methods: 491 premenopausal and perimenopausal patients with one to three positive axillary lymph nodes included in International (Ludwig) Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG) trial I from 1978 to 1981 and randomized to receive CMF or CMFp were analyzed for differences in long-term outcome and toxic events. The 250 patients assigned to CMF and prednisone received on the average 12% more cytotoxic drugs than those who received CMF alone., Results: The 13-year DFS for the CMFp group was 49% as compared to 52% for CMF alone, and the respective OS percents were 59% and 65%. Several toxic effects such as leukopenia, alopecia, mucositis and induced amenorrhea were reported at a similar incidence in the two treatment groups. Using cumulative incidence methodology for competing risks, we detected a statistically significant increase in first relapse in the skeleton for the CMFp group at 13 years follow-up with a relative risk (RR) of 2.06 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.23 to 3.46; P = 0.004]. Patients with larger tumors in the CMFp regimen were especially subject to this increase with a RR for failure in the skeleton of 3.32 (95% CI, 1.57 to 7.02; P = 0.0005). CMFp-treated patients also had a larger proportion of second malignancies (not breast cancer), with RR of 3.34 (95% CI, 0.91 to 12.31; P = 0.09)., Conclusions: Low-dose continuous prednisone added to adjuvant CMF chemotherapy enabled the use of higher doses of cytotoxics. This increased dose had no beneficial effect on treatment outcome, but was associated with an increased risk for bone relapses and a small, not statistically significant increased incidence of second malignancies. The effects of steroids, which are widely used as antiemetics (oral or pulse injection) together with cytotoxics, should be investigated to identify their influence upon treatment outcome.

Background: Combination chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer will palliate symptoms in the majority of patients but only a small percentage will have prolonged survival. Higher doses of doxorubicin lead to increased response rates in breast cancer and early studies have shown that epirubicin could be tolerated in higher doses with less relative toxicity than doxorubicin., Aims: This study was initiated to assess the dose of epirubicin that could be tolerated by escalating its dose while maintaining a fixed dose of cyclophosphamide. Simultaneously tumour response rate, spectrum of toxicities, duration of response and overall survival in patients with metastatic breast cancer were assessed., Methods: Patients with metastatic breast cancer commenced chemotherapy with a starting dose of epirubicin of 120 milligram per metre squared (mg/m2) and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2. The dose of epirubicin was to be escalated or reduced depending on toxicity., Results: Forty female patients were entered into this study and three patients withdrew because of toxicity. Overall tumour response rate was 75% with 27.5% of patients obtaining a complete response. Median time to progressive disease was 35 weeks and median overall survival was 48 weeks, with median survival for complete responders being 103 weeks. Thirty-one (77%) patients completed five or more courses of treatment. Haematological toxicity was the main side effect and 70% of patients required a dose reduction. No patients were eligible for a dose escalation. One patient died as a consequence of neutropenic sepsis. Four (10%) patients had treatment ceased because of decrease in left ventricular ejection fraction and one patient died as a consequence of heart failure. Four patients remain alive., Conclusions: High dose epirubicin combined with cyclophosphamide is an effective treatment regimen for metastatic breast cancer obtaining higher overall response rates with increased percentage complete responses compared to conventional dose chemotherapy. Although toxicity was increased, high dose chemotherapy was well tolerated and mortality associated with treatment was not increased. No dose escalations of epirubicin were possible and a dose of 90 mg/m2 of epirubicin would be the maximum dose when used in combination with cyclophosphamide. Further trials are required to determine the influence of this high dose therapy on survival duration and whether comparable benefits can be achieved with shorter durations of therapy.

Prior to the introduction of tamoxifen, diethylstilbestrol (DES) was widely used as the first-line endocrine therapy in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer. Since randomized trials reported that tamoxifen has a similar response rate but fewer side effects than DES, its use has declined markedly. We administered DES in a dose of 10-20 mg daily to 11 postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer, all of whom had received previous endocrine and some cytotoxic therapy also. Four women showed tumour responses to DES (1 complete and 3 partial), 5 had stable disease, and 2 progressive disease. Amongst the patients who responded, 2 had previously been unresponsive to other endocrine treatments. Of the women with stable disease, 3 had prolonged relief of symptoms. No withdrawal responses were noted. The major side effects were nausea (severe in 2 patients, mild in 1) and cardiac failure (2 patients). We conclude that DES remains a useful, active agent in the management of advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal women, even in patients with tumours unresponsive to other endocrine therapy.

We have analyzed the patterns of disease progression in patients with advanced breast and ovarian cancer receiving systemic therapy. Approximately 50% of patients developed progressive disease in a new, rather than a previously documented, disease site. Even when disease progressed in a previously involved disease site, in only half the cases was this identified as the bulk disease site before commencing treatment. The CNS was rarely a new site of disease progression in our patients, a finding that contrasts with a report that identified the CNS as the predominant new disease site in advanced breast cancer patients relapsing following a complete response. Progression of disease on second line treatment commonly occurred at sites of known disease. A number of factors influencing the pattern of disease progression have been examined. Disease progression on endocrine therapy tended to be more common in a previously involved disease site than in patients receiving cytotoxic therapy. There was a trend for patients who progressed within 6 months of chemotherapy to do so in an old site, whereas new disease sites predominated among those progressing later. Strategies for overcoming the causes of treatment failure should take account of the patterns of disease progression. Our results question the wisdom of always ceasing existing therapy when progressive disease is first documented.

Sixty-five patients with advanced breast cancer, progressive despite prior endocrine therapy in all cases and prior chemotherapy in most cases, were treated with aminoglutethimide, 250 mg four times a day. At present, 52 are evaluable for response assessment, and of these 10 (19%) showed an overall objective response, major sites of response being soft tissue and lung. A further 12 patients (23%) had stable disease during aminoglutethimide therapy, while a total of 9 patients with bone metastases reported marked relief of pain without objective evidence of response. Forty-nine patients had received prior treatment with tamoxifen, and of the 10 tamoxifen responders 4 (40%) responded to subsequent aminoglutethimide, while of the 20 tamoxifen failures only 2 (10%) responded to subsequent aminoglutethimide. Aminoglutethimide was reasonably well tolerated, although 6 patients (0%) discontinued treatment because of intolerable side effects. Six of the 10 responding patients have subsequently relapsed, with a mean duration of response of 17 weeks, but 4 continued to respond at 24, 32, 55, and 111 weeks, respectively. The median survival from the start of aminoglutethimide therapy is in excess of 41 weeks for responders and 11 weeks for nonresponders, while the median survival from first relapse is 48 months for aminoglutethimide responders and 28 months for aminoglutethimide nonresponders. These results confirm that aminoglutethimide can offer a useful alternative form of endocrine therapy for advanced breast cancer, but the response rates obtained in heavily pretreated patients are inferior to those obtained when aminoglutethimide is used earlier in sequential treatment. For optimal results, particularly in terms of quality of life, aminoglutethimide should generally be used prior to chemotherapy.

Strategies for overcoming the causes of drug resistance should take account of the patterns of treatment failure seen in clinical practice. We have analysed the patterns of disease progression in 267 patients with advanced breast cancer receiving systemic therapy. First disease progression on therapy most commonly occurred in tissues involved by tumour at the commencement of treatment. However in 40% of patients, first documentation of disease progression included a tissue not previously known to contain metastatic disease. In only 3% of patients was this new tissue the central nervous system. This pattern of disease progression was not influenced by treatment type (i.e. endocrine or cytotoxic), tumour response to treatment, oestrogen receptor status, prior adjuvant cytotoxic treatment, or disease free interval. These results question the wisdom of always ceasing existing therapy and substituting new treatment when progressive disease is first documented.

Thirty-eight patients with advanced breast cancer, resistant to prior endocrine therapy and in most cases prior chemotherapy, were treated with aminoglutethimide, 250 mg qds. Seven of 30 evaluable patients (23%) responded. Six have subsequently relapsed with a mean duration of response of 17 weeks, while one continues to respond after 50 weeks of therapy. Six additional patients (20%) had stable disease during aminoglutethimide therapy (mean duration of 16 weeks). Three of the seven responders had shown a partial response, two had stable disease and two had progressive disease on prior endocrine therapy (including tamoxifen); six of the seven patients responding to aminoglutethimide had received prior combination chemotherapy, to which all had responded. Aminoglutethimide was generally well tolerated, although three patients withdrew from treatment within the first two weeks because of intolerable drowsiness. Aminoglutethimide offers a useful alternative to surgical adrenalectomy for women with advanced breast cancer responsive to previous endocrine and cytotoxic chemotherapy.

We treated 105 patients with advanced breast cancer, using the progestational agent medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), 200 mg orally tds in a non-randomised trial. In general they were a poor risk population, since 78 had received prior endocrine therapy (21 more than one type) and 58 prior chemotherapy. Treatment was well tolerated. Side effects included weight gain, muscle cramps, fine tremor and fluid retention, but these were usually mild, resolved if the dose of drug was reduced, and only one patient stopped treatment because of toxicity. Seventeen patients died within six weeks of starting MPA, and disease progression occurred in a further 58. Nine have had stable disease for periods ranging from two to 11 months, and there were 21 who showed disease regression. Response to treatment continues in 13 of these patients, and at the time of writing the median duration of response is 10 months. Response rates were similar in pre- and post-menopausal patients. The dose of MPA was double to 400 mg tds in 16 patients whose disease had progressed on 200 mg tds, but no additional responses were seen in this group. Seven out of 24 (29%) patients who had not received prior endocrine therapy responded to high dose oral MPA, a response rate similar to that seen following other hormonal manipulations, but because the drug also has activity against hormone-resistant tumours and is well tolerated, it should have role in the treatment of advanced breast cancer.

Since chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer is not curative, consideration of the quality of life is important in selecting a treatment regimen. We conducted a randomized trial comparing continuous chemotherapy, administered until disease progression was evident, with intermittent therapy, whereby treatment was stopped after three cycles and then repeated for three more cycles only when there was evidence of disease progression. Each approach was tested with doxorubicin combined with cyclophosphamide or with cyclophosphamide combined with methotrexate, fluorouracil, and prednisone. Intermittent therapy resulted in a significantly worse response (P = 0.02 by Mann-Whitney test), a significantly shorter time to disease progression (relative risk based on proportional-hazards model, 1.8; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.4 to 2.4), and a trend toward shorter survival (relative risk, 1.3; confidence interval, 0.99 to 1.6). The quality of life was expressed as linear-analogue self-assessment scores for physical well-being, mood, pain, and appetite and as a quality-of-life index. It improved significantly during the first three cycles, when all patients received treatment. Thereafter, intermittent therapy was associated with worse scores for physical well-being (by 23 percent of scale; 95 percent confidence interval, 11 to 35 percent), mood (25 percent; 13 to 37 percent), and appetite (12 percent; 0 to 24 percent) and for the quality-of-life index as indicated by the patient (14 percent; 5 to 23 percent) and the physician (16 percent; 7 to 26 percent). Changes in the quality of life were independent prognostic factors in proportional-hazards models of subsequent survival. We conclude that, as tested, continuous chemotherapy is better than intermittent chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer.

Twenty-two patients with advanced breast cancer participated in a randomized cross-over study of one cycle each of doxorubicin followed 3 weeks later by mitozantrone or vice versa. Before further treatment, patients selected which drug they wished to continue. Of 18 patients completing the study, 13 chose to continue mitozantrone, 2 doxorubicin and 3 had no preference (P = 0.007). Patients were told to assume similar efficacy of the two drugs and drug preference was based primarily on side-effects. Patient self-assessment of quality of life and physician assigned toxicity scores both indicated that nausea and vomiting, appetite and alopecia were significantly worse following doxorubicin than after mitozantrone. Except for alopecia, no significant period or carry-over effects were noted although the power of the study to detect such interactions was low. This study design may prove useful in enabling patients to select their preference between two treatments of similar efficacy.