Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 123, Issue 1, pp 303–310 | Cite as

Adjuvant!© Online estimation of chemotherapy effectiveness when added to ovarian function suppression plus tamoxifen for premenopausal women with estrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer

  • Robert J. ParidaensEmail author
  • Shari Gelber
  • Bernard F. Cole
  • Richard D. Gelber
  • Beat Thürlimann
  • Karen N. Price
  • Stig B. Holmberg
  • Diana Crivellari
  • Alan S. Coates
  • Aron Goldhirsch
Brief Report


Adjuvant!© Online (Adjuvant!) is a user-friendly, web-based tool that provides estimates of adjuvant therapy outcomes for individual patients. While reliable evidence underpins estimates for most patient cohorts, there is a paucity of data on the effect of adding chemotherapy to complete estrogen blockade for premenopausal women with estrogen-receptor positive breast cancer. International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG) Trial 11-93 enrolled 174 premenopausal women with estrogen-receptor positive, node-positive breast cancer. Among these patients, 55% had one positive axillary lymph node and 97% had three or fewer positive nodes. Patients were randomized to receive ovarian function suppression plus 5 years of tamoxifen with or without anthracycline-based chemotherapy. Estimated hazard rates and corresponding 10-year relapse-free survival percentages obtained from Trial 11-93 data were compared with those predicted using Adjuvant!. The 10-year relapse-free survival percentages predicted from Adjuvant! were 64.4% (95% CI, 61.9–67.2%) for endocrine therapy alone and 74.9% (95% CI, 73.1–76.8%) for chemoendocrine therapy. By contrast, these estimates in Trial 11-93 were 76.4% (95% CI, 65.8–84.0%) for endocrine therapy alone and 74.9% (95% CI, 64.5–82.7%) for chemoendocrine therapy. The Adjuvant! estimate for the endocrine-alone control group is lower than that observed in Trial 11-93 (P = 0.03), while the estimates for the two chemoendocrine therapy groups are similar. Adjuvant! appears to underestimate the effectiveness of adjuvant endocrine therapy alone for premenopausal women with endocrine responsive breast cancer, thus overestimating the added benefit, if any, from chemotherapy for this patient population.


Adjuvant!© Online Estrogen receptor Premenopausal Chemotherapy Endocrine therapy International Breast Cancer Study Group 



The International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG) funded this research. The IBCSG is funded by the Swedish Cancer Society; The Cancer Council Australia; Australian New Zealand Breast Cancer Trials Group (NHMRC grant number 940892); The Frontier Science and Technology Research Foundation, the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK); Cancer Research Switzerland/Oncosuisse, the Foundation for Clinical Research of Eastern Switzerland (OSKK); and the United States National Cancer Institute (CA-75362). We thank Love Nickerson for collecting information on patient population from Adjuvant! Online.


  1. 1.
    Adjuvant! Inc (2009) Adjuvant! for Breast Cancer (Version 8.0). Accessed 9 Jul 2009
  2. 2.
    Ravdin PM, Siminoff LA, Davis GJ, Mercer MB, Hewlett J, Gerson N, Parker HL (2001) Computer program to assist in making decisions about adjuvant therapy for women with early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 19:980–991PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG) (1998) Polychemotherapy for early breast cancer: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet 352:930–952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG) (2005) Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet 365:1687–1717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    International Breast Cancer Study Group (2001) Randomized controlled trial of ovarian function suppression plus tamoxifen versus the same endocrine therapy plus chemotherapy: is chemotherapy necessary for premenopausal women with node-positive, endocrine responsive breast cancer? First results of International Breast Cancer Study Group Trial 11–93. The Breast 10(Suppl 3):130–138Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Thürlimann B, Price KN, Gelber RD, Holmberg SB, Crivellari D, Colleoni M et al (2009) Is chemotherapy necessary for premenopausal women with lower-risk node-positive, endocrine responsive breast cancer? 10-year update of International Breast Cancer Study Group Trial 11–93. Breast Cancer Res Treat 113:137–144CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Klijn JGM, Blamey RW, Boccardo F, Tominaga T, Duchateau L, Sylvester R for the Combined Hormone Agents Trialists’ Group and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (2001) Combined tamoxifen and luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist versus LHRH agonist alone in premenopausal advanced breast cancer: a meta-analysis of four randomized trials. J Clin Oncol 19:343–353Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fisher B, Brown AM, Dimitrov NV, Poisson R, Redmond C, Margolese RG, Bowman D, Wolmark N, Wickerham DL, Kardinal CG et al (1990) Two months of doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide with and without interval reinduction therapy compared with 6 months of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil in positive-node breast cancer patients with tamoxifen-nonresponsive tumors: results from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-15. J Clin Oncol 8:1483–1496PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kaufmann M, Jonat W, Blamey R, Cuzick J, Namer M, Fogelman I, de Haes JC, Schumacher M, Sauerbrei W, on behalf of the Zoladex Early Breast Cancer Research Association (ZEBRA) Trialists’ Group (2003). Survival analyses from the ZEBRA study: goserelin (Zoladex TM) versus CMF in premenopausal women with node-positive breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 39:1711–1717Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jakesz R, Hausmaninger H, Kubista E, Gnant M, Menzel C, Bauernhofer T, Seifert M, Haider K, Mlineritsch B, Steindorfer P, Kwasny W, Fridrik M, Steger G, Wette V, Samonigg H (2002) Randomized adjuvant trial of tamoxifen and goserelin versus cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and fluorouracil: evidence for the superiority of treatment with endocrine blockade in premenopausal patients with hormone-responsive breast cancer–Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group Trial 5. J Clin Oncol 20:4621–4627CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Roché H, Kerbrat P, Bonneterre J, Fargeot P, Fumoleau P, Monnier P, Clavère P, Goudier M-J, Chollet P, Guastalla J-P, Serin D (2006) Complete hormonal blockade versus epirubicin-based chemotherapy in premenopausal, one to three node-positive, and hormone-receptor positive, early breast cancer patients: 7-year follow-up results of French Adjuvant Study Group 06 randomised trial. Annals Oncol 17:1221–1227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Regan MM, Pagani O, Walley B, Torrisi R, Perez EA, Francis P et al (2008) Premenopausal endocrine-responsive early breast cancer: who receives chemotherapy? Ann Oncol 19:1231–1241CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Breast International Group (2009) MINDACT (Microarray in node negative disease may avoid chemotherapy) trial. Accessed 9 Jul 2009
  14. 14.
    National Cancer Institute (2009) US National Institutes of Health The TAILORx breast cancer trial. Accessed 9 Jul 2009
  15. 15.
    Olivotto I, Bajdik C, Ravdin P, Speers C, Coldman A, Norris B, Davis G, Chia S, Gelmon K (2005) Population-based validation of the prognostic model ADJUVANT! for early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 23:2716–2725CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Campbell HE, Taylor MA, Harris AL, Gray AM (2009) An investigation into the performance of the Adjuvant! Online prognostic programme in early breast cancer for a cohort of patients in the United Kingdom. Br J Cancer 101:1074–1084CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gnant M, Mlineritsch B, Schippinger W, Luschin-Ebengreuth G, Pöstlberger S, Menzel C, et al. (2009) Endocrine therapy plus zoledronic acid in premenopausal breast cancer. N Engl J Med 60:679–91 (Erratum in: N Engl J Med 360:2379)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert J. Paridaens
    • 1
    Email author
  • Shari Gelber
    • 2
    • 3
  • Bernard F. Cole
    • 2
    • 4
  • Richard D. Gelber
    • 2
    • 3
    • 5
  • Beat Thürlimann
    • 6
    • 7
  • Karen N. Price
    • 2
    • 3
  • Stig B. Holmberg
    • 8
  • Diana Crivellari
    • 9
  • Alan S. Coates
    • 10
  • Aron Goldhirsch
    • 11
    • 12
  1. 1.Department of Medical Oncology, University Hospital GasthuisbergCatholic University of LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  2. 2.IBCSG Statistical CenterDana-Farber Cancer InstituteBostonUSA
  3. 3.Frontier Science and Technology Research FoundationBostonUSA
  4. 4.Department of Mathematics and Statistics, College of Engineering and Mathematical SciencesUniversity of VermontBurlingtonUSA
  5. 5.Harvard School of Public HealthBostonUSA
  6. 6.Breast CenterKantonsspital St. GallenSt. GallenSwitzerland
  7. 7.Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK)BernSwitzerland
  8. 8.Department of SurgerySahlgrenska University HospitalGothenburgSweden
  9. 9.Centro di Riferimento OncologicoAvianoItaly
  10. 10.University of SydneySydneyAustralia
  11. 11.European Institute of OncologyMilanItaly
  12. 12.Oncology Institute of Southern SwitzerlandBellinzonaSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations