Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 113, Issue 3, pp 479–490 | Cite as

Fifteen-year median follow-up results after neoadjuvant doxorubicin, followed by mastectomy, followed by adjuvant cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) followed by radiation for stage III breast cancer: a phase II trial (CALGB 8944)

  • G. G. Kimmick
  • C. Cirrincione
  • D. B. Duggan
  • K. Bhalla
  • N. Robert
  • D. Berry
  • L. Norton
  • S. Lemke
  • I. C. Henderson
  • C. Hudis
  • E. Winer
  • On Behalf of the Cancer and Leukemia Group B
Clinical Trial

Abstract

Purpose To describe long-term results of a multimodality strategy for stage III breast cancer utilizing neoadjuvant doxorubicin followed by mastectomy, CMF, and radiotherapy. Patients and methods Women with biopsy-proven, clinical stage III breast cancer and adequate organ function were eligible. Neoadjuvant doxorubicin (30 mg/m2 days 1–3, every 28 days for 4 cycles) was followed by mastectomy, in stable or responding patients. Sixteen weeks of postoperative CMF followed (continuous oral cyclophosphamide (2 mg/kg/day); methotrexate (0.7 mg/kg IV) and fluorouracil (12 mg/kg IV) weekly, weeks 1–8, and than biweekly, weeks 9–16). Radiation therapy followed adjuvant chemotherapy. Results Clinical response rate was 71% (79/111, 95% CI = 62–79%), with 19% complete clinical response. Pathologic complete response was 5% (95% CI = 2–11%). Median follow-up is 15.6 years. Half of the patients progressed by 2.2 years; half died by 5.4 years (range 6 months–15 years). The hazard of dying was greatest in the first 5 years after diagnosis and declined thereafter. Time to progression and overall survival were predicted by number of pathologically involved lymph nodes (TTP: HR [10 vs. 1 node] 2.40, 95% CI = 1.63–3.53, P < 0.0001; OS: HR 2.50, 95% CI = 1.74–3.58, P < 0.0001). Conclusions After multimodality treatment for locally advanced breast cancer, long-term survival was correlated with the number of pathologically positive lymph nodes, but not to clinical response. The hazard of death was highest during the first 5 years after diagnosis and declined thereafter, indicating a possible intermediate endpoint for future trials of neoadjuvant treatment.

Keywords

Breast cancer Chemotherapy Locally advanced Long-term follow-up Neoadjuvant Stage III 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research for CALGB 8944 was supported, in part, by grants from the National Cancer Institute (CA31946) to the Cancer and Leukemia Group B (Richard L. Schilsky, Chairman), to the CALGB Statistical Center (Stephen George, PhD, CA33601) and to the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (Robert L. Comis, Chairman). The content of this manuscript is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Cancer Institute. The following institutions participated in this study: (1) CALGB Statistical Center, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC—Stephen George, Ph.D., supported by CA33601; (2) Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA—Eric P. Winer, M.D., supported by CA32291; (3) Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC—Jeffrey Crawford, M.D., supported by CA47577; (4) Eastern Maine Medical Center, Bangor, ME, Philip L. Brooks, M.D., supported by CA35406; (5) Kaiser Permanente, San Diago, CA, Joathan A. Polikoff, M.D., supported by CA45374; (6) Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA—Michael L. Grossbard, M.D., supported by CA12449; (7) North Shore - Long Island Jewish Medical Center, Manhasset, NY—Daniel R Budman, M.D., supported by CA35279; (8) Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, RI—William Sikov, M.D., supported by CA08025; (9) Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY—Ellis Levine, M.D., supported by CA02599; (10) Southeast Cancer Control Consortium Inc. CCOP, Goldsboro, NC—James N. Atkins, M.D., supported by CA45808; (11) Southern Nevada Cancer Research Foundation CCOP, Las Vegas, NV—John Ellerton, M.D., supported by CA35421; (12) State University of New York Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY—Stephen L. Graziano, M.D., supported by CA21060; (13) Syracuse Hematology-Oncology Association CCOP, Syracuse, NY, Stephen L Graziano, M.D., supported by CA21060; (14) University of Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, AL—Robert Diasio, M.D., supported by CA47545; (15) University of Chicago, Chicago, IL—Gini Fleming, M.D., supported by CA41287; (16) University of Maryland Greenebaum Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD—Martin Edelman, M.D., supported by CA31983; (17) University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA—William V. Walsh, M.D., supported by CA37135; (18) University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN—Bruce A Peterson, M.D., supported by CA16450; (19) University of Missouri/Ellis Fischel Cancer Center, Columbia, MO—Michael C Perry, M.D., supported by CA12046; (20) University of California at San Diego, San Diego, CA—Joanne Mortimer, M.D., supported by CA11789; (21) University of Tennessee Memphis, Memphis, TN—Harvey B. Niell, M.D., supported by CA47555; (22) Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC—David D Hurd, M.D., supported by CA03927; (23) Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, DC—Thomas Reid, M.D., supported by CA26806; (24) Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO—Nancy Bartlett, M.D., supported by CA77440; and (25) Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY—Scott Wadler, M.D., supported by CA07968.

References

  1. 1.
    Perloff M, Lesnick GJ, Korzun A et al (1988) Combination chemotherapy with mastectomy or adiotherapy for stage-III breast-carcinoma—a Cancer and Leukemia Group-B Study. J Clin Oncol 6:261–269PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Swain SM, Sorace RA, Bagley CS et al (1987) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the combined modality approach of locally advanced nonmetastatic breast cancer. Cancer Res 47:3889–3894PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Colozza M, Gori S, Anastasi P et al (1996) Induction chemotherapy with cisplatin, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (CAP) in a combined modality approach for locally advanced and inflammatory breast cancer. Long-term results. Am J Clin Oncol 19:10–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rouesse J, Friedman S, Sarrazin D et al (1986) Primary chemotherapy in the treatment of inflammatory breast-carcinoma—a study of 230 cases from the Institut-Gustave-Roussy. J Clin Oncol 4:1765–1771PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cummiskey RD, Mera R, Levine EA (1998) Preoperative chemotherapy for locally advanced breast carcinoma at Charity Hospital, New Orleans, Louisiana. Am Surg 64:103–106PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eltahir A, Heys SD, Hutcheon AW et al (1998) Treatment of large and locally advanced breast cancers using neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Am J Surg 175:127–132PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cunningham JD, Weiss SE, Ahmed S et al (1998) The efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy compared to postoperative therapy in the treatment of locally advanced breast cancer. Cancer Invest 16:80–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jones RB, Holland JF, Bhardwaj S, Norton L, Wilfinger C, Strashun A (1987) A phase I–II study of intensive-dose adriamycin for advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 5:172–177PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tranum BL, McDonald B, Thigpen T et al (1982) Adriamycin combinations in advanced breast cancer. A Southwest Oncology Group Study. Cancer 49:835–839PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hortobagyi GN, Buzdar AU, Bodey GP et al (1987) High-dose induction chemotherapy of metastatic breast cancer in protected environment: a prospective randomized study. J Clin Oncol 5:178–184PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bonadonna G, Zambetti M, Valagussa P (1995) Sequential or alternating doxorubicin and CMF regimens in breast cancer with more than three positive nodes. Ten-year results. JAMA 273:542–547PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kaplan EL, Meier P (1958) Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc 53:457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cox DR (1972) Regression models and life tables (with discussion). J R Stat Soc 34:187Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Anderson JR, Cain KC, Gelber RD (1983) Analysis of survival by tumor response. J Clin Oncol 1:710–719PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bonadonna G, Valagussa P, Brambilla C et al (1998) Primary chemotherapy in operable breast cancer: eight-year experience at the Milan Cancer Institute. J Clin Oncol 16:93–100PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kuerer HM, Newman LA, Smith TL et al (1999) Clinical course of breast cancer patients with complete pathologic primary tumor and axillary lymph node response to doxorubicin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 17:460–469PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ferriere JP, Assier I, Cure H et al (1998) Primary chemotherapy in breast cancer: correlation between tumor response and patient outcome. Am J Clin Oncol 21:117–120PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Machiavelli MR, Romero AO, Perez JE et al (1998) Prognostic significance of pathological response of primary tumor and metastatic axillary lymph nodes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced breast carcinoma. Cancer J Sci Am 4:125–131PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Powles TJ, Hickish TF, Makris A et al (1995) Randomized trial of chemoendocrine therapy started before or after surgery for treatment of primary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 13:547–552PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    van der Hage JA, van de Velde CJ, Julien JP, Tubiana-Hulin M, Vandervelden C, Duchateau L (2001) Preoperative chemotherapy in primary operable breast cancer: results from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer trial 10902. J Clin Oncol 19:4224–4237PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rouzier R, Extra JM, Klijanienko J et al (2002) Incidence and prognostic significance of complete axillary downstaging after primary chemotherapy in breast cancer patients with T1 to T3 tumors and cytologically proven axillary metastatic lymph nodes. J Clin Oncol 20:1304–1310PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ravdin PM, Burris HA, Cook G et al (1995) Phase II trial of docetaxel in advanced anthracycline-resistant or anthracenedione-resistant breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 13:2879–2885PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Valero V, Holmes FA, Walters RS et al (1995) Phase II trial of docetaxel: a new, highly effective antineoplastic agent in the management of patients with anthracycline-resistant metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 13:2886–2894PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Henderson IC, Berry DA, Demetri GD et al (2003) Improved outcomes from adding sequential paclitaxel but not from escalating doxorubicin dose in an adjuvant chemotherapy regimen for patients with node-positive primary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 21:976–983PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Citron ML, Berry DA, Cirrincione C et al (2003) Randomized trial of dose-dense versus conventionally scheduled and sequential versus concurrent combination chemotherapy as postoperative adjuvant treatment of node-positive primary breast cancer: first report of intergroup trial C9741/cancer and leukemia group B trial 9741. J Clin Oncol 21:1431–1439PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hennessy BT, Hortobagyi GN, Rouzier R et al (2005) Outcome after pathologic complete eradication of cytologically proven breast cancer axillary node metastases following primary chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 23:9304–9311PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Beenken SW, Urist MM, Zhang Y et al (2003) Axillary lymph node status, but not tumor size, predicts locoregional recurrence and overall survival after mastectomy for breast cancer. Ann Surg 237:732–738 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    McCready DR, Hortobagyi GN, Kau SW, Smith TL, Buzdar AU, Balch CM (1989) The prognostic-significance of lymph-node metastases after preoperative chemotherapy for Locally advanced breast-cancer. Arch Surg 124:21–25PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fisher B, Bryant J, Wolmark N et al (1998). Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on the outcome of women with operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 16:2672–2685PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pierga JY, Mouret E, Dieras V et al (2000) Prognostic value of persistent node involvement after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with operable breast cancer. Br J Cancer 83:1480–1487PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bear HD, Anderson S, Smith RE et al (2006) Sequential preoperative or postoperative docetaxel added to preoperative doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide for operable breast cancer: National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol B-27. J Clin Oncol 24:2019–2027PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bear HD, Anderson S, Brown A et al (2003) The effect on tumor response of adding sequential preoperative docetaxel to preoperative doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide: preliminary results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol B-27. J Clin Oncol 21:4165–4174PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bonadonna G, Veronesi U, Brambilla C et al (1990) Primary chemotherapy to avoid mastectomy in tumors with diameters of three centimeters or more. J Natl Cancer Inst 82:1539–1545PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Fisher B, Bryant J, Wolmark N et al (1998) Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on the outcome of women with operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 16:2672–2685PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fisher ER, Wang J, Bryant J, Fisher B, Mamounas E, Wolmark N (2002) Pathobiology of preoperative chemotherapy: findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel (NSABP) protocol B-18. Cancer 95:681–695PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    von Minckwitz G, Raab G, Caputo A et al (2005) Doxorubicin with cyclophosphamide followed by docetaxel every 21 days compared with doxorubicin and docetaxel every 14 days as preoperative treatment in operable breast cancer: the GEPARDUO study of the German Breast Group. J Clin Oncol 23:2676–2685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Colleoni M, Viale G, Zahrieh D et al (2004) Chemotherapy is more effective in patients with breast cancer not expressing steroid hormone receptors: a study of preoperative treatment. Clin Cancer Res 10:6622–6628PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Faneyte IF, Schrama JG, Peterse JL, Remijnse PL, Rodenhuis S, van de Vijver MJ (2003) Breast cancer response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy: predictive markers and relation with outcome. Br J Cancer 88:406–412PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Buzdar AU, Valero V, Theriault R et al. (2003) Pathologic complete response to chemotherapy is related to hormone receptor status. Breast Cancer Res Treat 82:69SGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Guarneri V, Broglio K, Kau SW et al (2006) Prognostic value of pathologic complete response after primary chemotherapy in relation to hormone receptor status and other factors. J Clin Oncol 24:1037–1044PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ring AE, Smith IE, Ashley S, Fulford LG, Lakhani SR (2004) Oestrogen receptor status, pathological complete response and prognosis in patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer. Br J Cancer 91:2012–2017PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Merajver SD, Weber BL, Cody R et al (1997) Breast conservation and prolonged chemotherapy for locally advanced breast cancer: the University of Michigan experience. J Clin Oncol 15:2873–2881PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Cance WG, Carey LA, Calvo BF et al (2002) Long-term outcome of neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced breast carcinoma: effective clinical downstaging allows breast preservation and predicts outstanding local control and survival. Ann Surg 236:295–302PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Berry DA, Cirrincione C, Henderson IC et al (2006) Estrogen-receptor status and outcomes of modern chemotherapy for patients with node-positive breast cancer. JAMA 295:1658–1667PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Fisher B, Mamounas EP (1995) Preoperative chemotherapy: a model for studying the biology and therapy of primary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 13:537–540PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. G. Kimmick
    • 1
  • C. Cirrincione
    • 2
  • D. B. Duggan
    • 3
  • K. Bhalla
    • 4
  • N. Robert
    • 5
  • D. Berry
    • 6
  • L. Norton
    • 7
  • S. Lemke
    • 3
  • I. C. Henderson
    • 8
  • C. Hudis
    • 7
  • E. Winer
    • 9
  • On Behalf of the Cancer and Leukemia Group B
    • 10
  1. 1.Duke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA
  2. 2.CALGB Statistical CenterDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA
  3. 3.SUNY Upstate Medical UniversitySyracuseUSA
  4. 4.H. Lee Moffitt Cancer CenterTampaUSA
  5. 5.Inova Fairfax Hospital Institute of ResearchFalls ChurchUSA
  6. 6.Department of BiostatisticsMD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonUSA
  7. 7.Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA
  8. 8.University of California San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA
  9. 9.Dana Farber Cancer InstituteBostonUSA
  10. 10.ChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations