Search

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported .Although dose-dense adjuvant chemotherapy administered once every 2 weeks leads to superior outcomes compared with standard regimens once every 3 weeks, the observed improvement is largely limited to studies using the suboptimal paclitaxel schedule once every 3 weeks as control. PANTHER is an international phase III trial which compared sequential epirubicin/cyclophosphamide and docetaxel administered either once every 2 or once every 3 weeks, with tailored dosing at the dose-dense schedule according to hematologic toxicity. In this end-of-study analysis, the median follow-up was 10.3 years. Compared with standard adjuvant chemotherapy, dose-dense treatment improved breast cancer recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80 [95% CI, 0.65 to 0.98]; P = .030), event-free survival (HR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.65 to 0.94]; P = .009), and distant disease-free survival (HR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.64 to 0.98]; P = .030) while the improvement in overall survival was not statistically significant (HR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.65 to 1.04]; P = .109). To our knowledge, this is the first trial that confirms the benefit of a dose-dense regimen over a control regimen containing docetaxel once every 3 weeks.

Background: GeparOcto demonstrated that pathological complete response (pCR) of intense dose-dense epirubicin, paclitaxel and cyclophosphamide (iddEPC) was comparable to weekly paclitaxel/non-pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (plus carboplatin (PM(Cb) in triple-negative breast cancer [TNBC]) in high-risk early breast cancer (BC). Here, we report time-to-event secondary end-points., Patients and Methods: Patients were randomised to receive 18 weeks of E (150 mg/m 2 ) followed by P (225 mg/m 2 ) followed by C (2000 mg/m 2 ), each q2w or weekly P (80 mg/m 2 ) plus M (20 mg/m 2 ) plus, in TNBC, Cb (AUC 1.5). Patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+)BC received trastuzumab (6[loading dose 8]mg/kg q3w) and pertuzumab (420[840]mg q3w) with P and C cycles., Results: 945 patients started treatment (iddEPC n = 470; PM(Cb) n = 475). After a median follow-up of 47.0 (range 1.6-61.5) months, 162 (75 in iddEPC; 87 in PM(Cb)) invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) events and 79 (41 in iddEPC; 38 in PM(Cb)) deaths were reported. No significant difference was observed in 4-year iDFS (81.9% iddEPC versus 79.7% PM(Cb), HR = 1.16 [95%CI 0.85-1.59], log-rank p = 0.334) or 4-year overall survival (OS) (90.3% iddEPC versus 90.6% PM(Cb), HR = 0.90 [95%CI 0.58-1.40], log-rank p = 0.637) overall and in HER2+ and TNBC subgroups. HR+/HER2- BC patients, however, had significantly better 4-year iDFS (77.9% iddEPC versus 62.5% PM, HR = 2.11 [95%CI 1.08-4.10], log-rank p = 0.025) and 4-year OS with iddEPC (94.7% iddEPC versus 80.1% PM, HR = 3.26 [95%CI 1.06-10.00], log-rank p = 0.029)., Conclusion: While there was no difference in survival for the entire cohort, the HR+/HER2-subgroup significantly benefits from iddEPC. This supports the concept of an additional effect of NACT beyond pCR in patients with HR+/HER2- BC. CLINICALTRIALS., Gov Identifier: NCT02125344., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: AS reports grants from Celgene, grants from Roche, grants from AbbVie, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Celgene, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Celgene, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Tesaro, personal fees from Lilly, personal fees from Pfizer, other from Roche, outside the submitted work; CD reports grants from European Commission H2020, grants from German Cancer Aid Translational Oncology, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from MSD Oncology, personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, personal fees from AstraZeneca, from Molecular Health, grants from Myriad, personal fees from Merck, other from Sividon diagnostics, outside the submitted work; In addition, Dr. Denkert has a patent VMScope digital pathology software with royalties paid, a patent WO2020109570A1-cancer immunotherapy pending, and a patent WO2015114146A1 and WO2010076322A1-therapy response issued; CH reports a consulting or advisory role for Roche, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Lilly-Pharma, Celgene; CJ reports personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Celgene, personal fees from AstraZeneca, during the conduct of the study; CS reports a consulting or advisory role for Hologicm, MSD; reports travel, accommodations, or expenses from Pfizer, MSD, AstraZeneca, Roche; EH reports honoraria and a consulting or advisory role from AstraZeneca; HT reports other from Pierre Fabre, other from Pfizer Pharma, other from Mundipharma, other from ClinSol, other from Novartis, other from Lilly, other from AMGEN, other from Grünenthal, other from Vifor, other from AstraZeneca, other from Mylan, other from BMS, during the conduct of the study; JH reports personal fees from Lilly, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Abbvie, personal fees from Astra Zeneca, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Celgene, personal fees from Roche, other from Daichii, other from Roche, other from Pfizer, grants from Novartis, grants from Hexal, outside the submitted work; JUB reports honoraria, travel support and unrestricted grants from AMGEN, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Molecular Health, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre-Fabre, Roche; KK reports other from MSD Sharpe amd Dome GmBH, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Astra Zeneca, outside the submitted work; KL reports a consulting or advisory role for Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, Exact Science Eisai, MSD; reports travel, accommodations, or expenses from Roche; KR reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from MSD, outside the submitted work; LM reports honoraria from Pfizer, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Roche, Lilly; reports a consulting or advisory role for Pfizer, Roche, Eisai, AstraZeneca; reports travel, accommodations, or expenses from Eisai, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Lilly, and Roche; MU reports honoraria to the employer/institution from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, Roche, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi-Aventis, MSD; reports research funding to the employer/institution from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Pierre Fabre; PAF reports honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Astra Zeneca, Hexal, Lilly, Pierre Fabre, Seagen, Agendia, Cepheid, BionTech; reports a consulting or advisory role for Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Astra Zeneca, Hexal, Lilly, Pierre Fabre, Seagen, Agendia, Lilly; reports research funding from Novartis, BioNTech AG, Cepheid; SL reports honoraria from Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Celgene, DSI, Eirgenix, GSK, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Prime/Medscape, Puma, Roche, Samsung, and Seagen; reports a consulting or advisory role for Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Celgene, DSI, Eirgenix, GSK, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Prime/Medscape, Puma, Roche, and Seagen; reports a speaker's bureau for AstraZeneca, DSI, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Prime/Medscape, Roche, and Samsung; reports research funding from Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Cepheid, DSI, Immunomedics, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; reports a patent or intellectual property interest with VM Scope GmbH; reports another relationship with Roche; TL reports honoraria from Amgen, Roche, Clovis, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly; reports a consulting or advisory role from Tesaro, Amgen, MSD, Roche, Pfizer, Lilly, Myriad, Esai, GSK; reports travel, accommodations, or expenses from MSD, Celgen, Clovis; VM reports and Speaker honoraria received from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Roche, Teva. Consultancy honoraria from Roche, Amgen, Tesaro and Myelo Therapeutics; No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: GeparOcto compared efficacy and safety of two chemotherapy regimens in high-risk early breast cancer (BC): sequential treatment with intense dose-dense epirubicin, paclitaxel, and cyclophosphamide (iddEPC) and weekly treatment with paclitaxel plus non-pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (M, Myocet®) with additional carboplatin (PM(Cb)) in triple-negative BC (TNBC)., Patients and Methods: Patients with cT1c-cT4a-d and centrally assessed human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER)2-positive BC or TNBC were eligible, irrespective of nodal status, luminal B-like tumours only if pN+. Patients were randomised (stratified by BC subtype, Ki67, lymphocyte-predominant BC) to receive 18 weeks of E (150 mg/m 2 ) followed by P (225 mg/m 2 ) followed by C (2000 mg/m 2 ), each q2w for 3 cycles or weekly P (80 mg/m 2 ) plus M (20 mg/m 2 ) plus, in TNBC, Cb (area under curve (AUC) 1.5). HER2-positive BC patients additionally received trastuzumab (6 [loading dose 8]mg/kg q3w) and pertuzumab (420 [840]mg q3w) with all P and C cycles. Primary end-point was pathological complete response (pCR, ypT0/is ypN0), secondary end-points included other pCR definitions, pCR in stratified subpopulations, tolerability and compliance. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT02125344., Results: 945/961 randomised patients started treatment. The median age was 48 years; 7.6% had cT3-4, 46% cN+, 66% G3, 40% HER2-positive, 43% TNBC. pCR rate with iddEPC was 48.3%, with PM(Cb) 48.0%, respectively (PM(Cb) versus iddEPC odds ratio 0.99; 95% confidence interval 0.77-1.28, P = 0.979) with no significant differences observed in TNBC, HER2-positive, luminal B-like subtypes. 16.4% with iddEPC and 34.1% with PM(Cb) discontinued treatment (P < 0.001), mainly due to adverse events; two patients on PM(Cb) died., Conclusions: In high-risk early BC there is no difference in pCR rates following neoadjuvant treatment with iddEPC or weekly PM(Cb), respectively. iddEPC is one of the effective dose-dense regimens feasible in daily practice., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Although greater than 40% of breast cancers occur in patients aged ≥65 years, these individuals are frequently undertreated. Taxane-based adjuvant chemotherapy is considered the treatment of choice but to the authors' knowledge has only limited evidence in elderly patients., Methods: Patients aged ≥65 years with a Charlson comorbidity index ≤2 and pT1/2 pN0/1 disease and either human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive, hormone receptor-negative, grade 3 (according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [version 3.0]), high uPA/PAI-1 or any stage pT3/4 pN2/3 breast cancer were randomized to receive 4 cycles of adjuvant epirubicin and cyclophosphamide (EC) (epirubicin at a dose of 90 mg/m(2) and cyclophosphamide at a dose of 600 mg/m(2) intravenously [iv] on day 1 every 3 22 days) or 6 cycles of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and 5-fluorouracil (CMF) (cyclophosphamide at a dose of 500 mg/m(2), methotrexate at a dose of 40 mg/m(2), and 5-fluorouracil at a dose of 600 mg/m(2) iv on days 1 plus 8 every 29 days) versus 6 cycles of nab-paclitaxel and capecitabine (nPX) (nab-paclitaxel at a dose of 100 mg/m(2) iv on days 1, 8, and 15 every 21 days with 1 week of rest every 6 weeks plus capecitabine at a dose of 2000 mg/m(2) orally on days 1-14 every 21 days). Primary endpoints were treatment discontinuations and overall frequency of adverse events., Results: Thirteen of 198 patients (6.6%) discontinued EC/CMF and 69 of 193 patients (35.8%) discontinued nPX (P<.001) with 1 and 5 deaths observed during treatment, respectively. Grade 3 to 5 adverse events were more frequent among patients treated with EC/CMF (90.9%) than among those treated with nPX (64.8%) (P<.001), with hematological toxicities being more frequent with EC/CMF (88.4% vs 22.3%; P<.001), but nonhematological toxicities (hand-foot syndrome, diarrhea, mucositis, fatigue, sensory neuropathy, thromboembolisms, and metabolic disorders) being more frequent with nPX (58.5% vs 18.7%; P<.001). None of the geriatric scores (Charlson comorbidity index, Vulnerable Elders Survey [VES-13], Instrumental Activities of Daily Living [IADL], and G8) independently predicted grade 3 to 5 toxic events or treatment discontinuations. No differences in survival between the treatment groups were observed after 22.8 months., Conclusions: Compared with EC/CMF, treatment with nPX led to more treatment discontinuations and nonhematological toxicities in elderly patients with moderate or high-risk breast cancer., (© 2015 American Cancer Society.)

Purpose: To compare preoperative intense dose-dense (IDD) chemotherapy with conventionally scheduled preoperative chemotherapy in high-risk primary breast cancer (BC)., Patients and Methods: In this randomized phase III trial a total of 668 eligible primary BC patients stratified for tumors > or = 3 cm (n = 567) or inflammatory BC (n = 101) were randomly assigned to receive concurrent preoperative epirubicin/paclitaxel every 3 weeks or dose-dense and dose-escalated sequential epirubicin followed by paclitaxel every 2 weeks. All patients received three cycles of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil chemotherapy after surgery., Results: IDD treatment significantly improved pathologic complete response rate (18% v 10%; odds ratio [OR] 1.89; P = .008), disease-free survival (DFS; hazard ratio [HR], 0.71; P = .011), and overall survival (OS; HR, 0.83; P = .041) compared to epirubicin/paclitaxel. Patients with inflammatory BC had a particularly poor prognosis and did not appear to benefit from IDD therapy in this trial (DFS HR, 1.10; P = .739; OS HR, 1.25; P = .544). In contrast, patients with noninflammatory BC significantly benefited from IDD treatment (DFS HR, 0.65, P = .005; OS HR, 0.77, P = .013). Treatment effects in multivariate analysis were significant for noninflammatory BC (DFS HR, 0.65, P = .015; OS HR, 0.79, P = .034), but not for all patients (DFS HR, 0.76; P = .088; OS HR, 0.82; P = .059). IDD therapy was associated with significantly more nonhematologic toxicities, anemia, and thrombocytopenia, but with similar neutropenia and infection rates., Conclusion: Our results support the efficacy and short-term safety of IDD as preoperative chemotherapy. IDD was less well tolerated compared to standard treatment, but improved clinical outcomes in patients with noninflammatory high-risk primary BC.

Since the publication of the Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) protocol 111 in 1996, and the results of the Arbeitgemeinschaft Gyna kologische Onkologie (AGO) trial Ovar-3 and the GOG protocol 158, the combination of platinum and paclitaxel has been adopted as the standard therapy in advanced ovarian cancer. One option for achieving further progress in the first-line treatment of advanced ovarian cancer might be the addition of noncross-resistant drugs to the two-drug regimen. Meta-analysis showed a survival benefit for platinum-anthracycline based combinations as compared to platinum-based combinations without anthracyclines. An AGO phase I/II trial compared epirubicin in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel in untreated patients with gynecological malignancies. Based on the results of this study a randomized phase III trial together with the French GINECO group was conducted. The trial started 11/97 and was closed 11/99. All 1281 patients were randomized. Currently, 1132 end-of-therapy reports have been issued. Nine hundred eighty nine (87%) patients completed six cycles of treatment. Treatment and toxicity data are available for these patients. Three hundred thirty five patients had a measurable residual tumor after initial debulking surgery. Response data of 228 patients (111 ET-Carbo, 117 Carbo-T) are available.

BackgroundPrimary breast cancer (BC) patients with extensive axillary lymph-node involvement have a limited prognosis. The Arbeitsgemeinschaft fuer Gynaekologische Onkologie (AGO) trial compared intense dose-dense (idd) adjuvant chemotherapy with conventionally scheduled chemotherapy in high-risk BC patients. Here we report the final, 10-year follow-up analysis.Patients and methodsEnrolment took place between December 1998 and April 2003. A total of 1284 patients with 4 or more involved axillary lymph nodes were randomly assigned to receive 3 courses each of idd sequential epirubicin, paclitaxel and cyclophosphamide (iddEPC) q2w or standard epirubicin/cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel (EC → P) q3w. Event-free survival (EFS) was the primary end point.ResultsA total of 658 patients were assigned to receive iddEPC and 626 patients were assigned to receive EC → P. The median duration of follow-up was 122 months. EFS was 47% (95% CI 43% to 52%) in the standard group and 56% (95% CI 52% to 60%) in the iddEPC group [hazard ratio (HR) 0.74, 95% CI 0.63-0.87; log-rank P = 0.00014, one-sided]. This benefit was independent of menopausal, hormone receptor or HER2 status. Ten-year overall survival (OS) was 59% (95% CI 55% to 63%) for patients in the standard group and 69% (95% CI 65% to 73%) for patients in the iddEPC group (HR = 0.72, 95% CI 0.60-0.87; log-rank P = 0.0007, two-sided). Nine versus two cases of secondary myeloid leukemia/myelodysplastic syndrome were observed in the iddEPC and the EC → P arm, respectively.ConclusionThe previously reported OS benefit of iddEPC in comparison to conventionally dosed EC → P has been further increased and achieved an absolute difference of 10% after 10 years of follow-up.

Background: Dose-dense (dd) regimens are one of the preferred options for the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer patients with intermediate to high risk. The German Adjuvant Intergroup Node-positive trial aimed at optimizing intense dd (idd) strategies by evaluating drug combinations and the addition of capecitabine. Patients and methods: Women (aged 18 years and biologically<65 years) with histologically involved axillary lymph nodes were randomly assigned to receive three courses each of epirubicin (E) 150 mg/m², paclitaxel (P) 225 mg/m² and cyclophosphamide (C) 2500 mg/m² (reduced to 2000 mg/m² after recruitment of 1200 patients) q2w intravenously (i.v.) (iddEPC-regimen) or ddEC (E 112.5 mg/m²+C 600 mg/m², i.v. q2w for 4 cycles) followed by paclitaxel weekly (Pw 67.5 mg/m² i.v. q8d for 10 weeks) plus capecitabine (X 2000 mg/m² p.o. days 1-14, q22 for 4 cycles) (ddEC-PwX-regimen). Further randomization assigned patients to ibandronate for 2 years versus observation and to pegfilgrastim day 2 versus 4. Results: From June 2004 to August 2008, 2994 patients were randomized to either iddEPC (N=1498), or ddEC-PwX (N=1496) and started treatment. Median age was 50 years; pN1 (37.8%), pN2 (35.3%); pN3 (26.9%); 46.4% were G3 tumors; 76.9% hormone receptor-positive and 22% HER2-positive. After a median follow-up of 74 months, 645 events and 383 deaths were recorded. Hematological adverse events grades 3-4 were more common with iddEPC (P<0.001), nonhematological with ddEC-PwX (P=0.04), even if the toxicity profile of the two regimens was different. At 5 years, estimated disease-free survival rates for ddECPwX and iddEPC were 81.7% [95% confidence interval (CI) 79.5-83.6] versus 80.2% (95% CI 78.0-82.2). Hazard ratio (HR)=0.95 (95% CI 0.81-1.11, log-rank P=0.49). Five-year overall survival rates were 89.4% for ddEC-PwX (95% CI 87.7-91.0) and 89.0% for iddEPC (95% CI 87.2-90.6), HR=0.85 (95% CI 0.69-1.04, log-rank P=0.10). Conclusion: Adding capecitabine to ddEC-Pw did not improve outcome in comparison to iddEPC but increased toxicity and should not be recommended for further use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Potential prognostic and predictive markers in early, intermediate-risk breast cancer (BC) include histological grade, Ki-67, genomic signatures, e.g. genomic grade index (GGI), and intrinsic subtypes. Their prognostic/ predictive impact in hormone receptor (HR: ER and/or PR) positive/HER2- BC is controversial. WSG-AGO EC-Doc demonstrated superior event-free survival (EFS) in patients with 1-3 positive lymph node receiving epirubicin/cyclophosphamide- docetaxel (EC-Doc) versus 5-fluoruracil/epirubicin/cyclophosphamide (FEC). Methods: In a representative trial subset, we quantify concordance among factors used for clinical chemotherapy indication. We investigate the impact of central histology (n = 772), immunohistochemistry for intrinsic subtyping and IHC4, and dichotomous (GG) or continuous (GGI) genomic grade (n = 472) on patient outcome and benefit from taxane chemotherapy, focusing on HR+/HER2- patients (n = 459). Results: Concordance of local grade (LG) with central (CG) or genomic grade was modest. In HR+/HER2- patients, low (GG-1: 16%), equivocal (GG-EQ: 17%), and high (GG-3: 67%) GG were associated with respective 5-year EFS of 100%, 93%, and 85%. GGI was prognostic for EFS within all LG subgroups and within CG3, whereas IHC4 was prognostic only in CG3 tumors. In unselected and HR+/HER2- patients, CG3 and luminal-A-like subtype entered the multivariate EFS model, but not IHC4 or GG. In the whole population, continuous GGI entered the model [hazard ratio (H.R.) of 75th versus 25th = 2.79; P = 0.01], displacing luminal-A-like subtype; within HR+/HER2- (H.R. = 5.36; P < 0.001), GGI was the only remaining prognostic factor. In multivariate interaction analysis (including central and genomic grade), luminal-Blike subtype [HR+ and (Ki-67 =20% or HER2+)] was predictive for benefit of EC-Doc versus FEC in unselected but not in HR+/HER2- patients. Conclusion: In the WSG-AGO EC-Doc trial for intermediate-risk BC, CG, intrinsic subtype (by IHC), and GG provide prognostic information. Continuous GGI (but not IHC4) adds prognostic information even when IHC subtype and CG are available. Finally, the high interobserver variability for histological grade and the still missing validation of Ki-67 preclude indicating or omitting adjuvant chemotherapy based on these single factors alone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]