Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Adjuvant dose-dense chemotherapy in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

  • Review
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Dose-dense (DD) chemotherapy (CT) aimed at achieving a higher rate of cancer cell destruction has been adopted as an adjuvant therapy in high-risk breast cancer (BC), with the goal being to improve outcomes. We performed an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the existing data from randomized phase III trials regarding the efficacy and toxicity of this adjuvant DD-CT strategy in early BC. Randomized-controlled trials that compared a DD with a standard adjuvant CT schedule in adult women with resected BC were identified by searching the databases of Pubmed, the Cochrane Cancer Register of Controlled Trials, SCOPUS, EMBASE, and the Web of Science up to March 2015. Hazard ratios (HRs) of death and recurrence, and the relative risks of adverse events, were estimated and pooled. A total of 8 phase III trials encompassing 17,188 randomized patients met the inclusion criteria. The patients who received DD-CT had better overall survival (OS: HR 0.86, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.79–0.93, P = 0.0001) and disease-free survival (DFS: HR 0.84, 95 % CI 0.77–0.91, P < 0.0001) than those on the conventional schedule. A statistically significant OS benefit was observed in patients with hormone receptor-negative (ER−) tumors (HR 0.8, P = 0.002), but not in those with ER-positive BC (HR 0.93, 95 % CI 0.82–1.05; P = 0.25). DD-CT leads to better OS and DFS, particularly in women with ER− early BC. These results suggest that the DD strategy should be the standard care offered to high-risk ER− BC patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG), Peto R, Davies C et al (2012) Comparisons between different polychemotherapy regimens for early breast cancer: meta-analyses of long-term outcome among 100,000 women in 123 randomised trials. Lancet 379(9814):432–444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Norton L (2005) Conceptual and practical implications of breast tissue geometry: toward a more effective, less toxic therapy. Oncologist 10(6):370–381

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 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(8):1431–1439. (Epub 2003 Feb 13, Erratum in: J Clin Oncol. 2003 Jun 1; 21(11):2226)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bonilla L, Ben-Aharon I, Vidal L et al (2010) Dose-dense chemotherapy in nonmetastatic breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Natl Cancer Inst 102(24):1845–1854

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Del Mastro L, De Placido S, Bruzzi P et al (2015) Fluorouracil and dose-dense chemotherapy in adjuvant treatment of patients with early-stage breast cancer: an open-label, 2  ×  2 factorial, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62048-1

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Swain SM, Tang G, Geyer CE Jr et al (2013) Definitive results of a phase III adjuvant trial comparing three chemotherapy regimens in women with operable, node-positive breast cancer: the NSABP B-38 trial. J Clin Oncol 31(26):3197–3204

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gogas H, Dafni U, Karina M et al (2012) Postoperative dose-dense sequential versus concomitant administration of epirubicin and paclitaxel in patients with node-positive breast cancer: 5-year results of the Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group HE 10/00 phase III Trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat 132(2):609–619

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Parmar MK, Torri V, Stewart L (1998) Extracting summary statistics to perform meta-analyses of the published literature for survival endpoints. Stat Med 17:2815–2834

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Mantel N, Haenszel W (1959) Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst 22(4):719–748

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. DerSimonian R, Laird N (1986) Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7(3):177–188

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, Minder C (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple graphical test. BMJ 315(7109):629–634

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Begg CB, Mazumdar M (1994) Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics 50(4):1088–1101

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hudis C, Citron ML, Berry D et al (2005) Five year follow-up of INT C9741: dose-dense (DD) chemotherapy (CRx) is safe and effective. Breast Cancer Res Treat 94(Suppl. 1):S20–S21

    Google Scholar 

  14. Venturini M, Del Mastro L, Aitini E et al (2005) Dosedense adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer patients: results from a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 97:1724–1733

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Moebus V, Jackisch C, Lueck HJ et al (2010) Intense dose-dense sequential chemotherapy with epirubicin, paclitaxel, and cyclophosphamide compared with conventionally scheduled chemotherapy in high-risk primary breast cancer: mature results of an AGO phase III study. J Clin Oncol 28(17):2874–2880

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Burnell M, Levine MN, Chapman JA et al (2010) Cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and fluorouracil versus dose-dense epirubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel versus doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by Paclitaxel in node-positive or high-risk node-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 28(1):77–82

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Linden HM, Haskell CM, Green SJ et al (2007) Sequenced compared with simultaneous anthracycline and cyclophosphamide in high-risk stage I and II breast cancer: final analysis from INT-0137 (S9313). J Clin Oncol 25(6):656–661

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hershman D, Neugut AI, Jacobson JS et al (2007) Acute myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome following use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors during breast cancer adjuvant chemotherapy. J Natl Cancer Inst 99(3):196–205

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Schwentner L, Wöckel A, König J et al (2014) Assessing the impact of CMF-like/anthracycline-based/anthracycline-taxane-based/dose-dense chemotherapy in dependency of positive axillary lymph nodes/hormone receptor-status/grading/T-stage on survival—A retrospective multi-centre cohort study of 3677 patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. Eur J Cancer 50(17):2905–2915

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Shulman LN, Cirrincione CT, Berry DA et al (2012) Six cycles of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide or paclitaxel are not superior to four cycles as adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer in women with zero to three positive axillary nodes: cancer and leukemia Group B 40101. J Clin Oncol 30(33):4071–4076

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Berry DA, Ueno NT, Johnson MM et al (2011) High-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem-cell support as adjuvant therapy in breast cancer: overview of 15 randomized trials. J Clin Oncol 29(24):3214–3223

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hudis CA, Barlow WE, Costantino JP et al (2007) Proposal for standardized definitions for efficacy end points in adjuvant breast cancer trials: the STEEP system. J Clin Oncol 25:2127–2132

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

All the authors have disclosed any potential conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Oncology, Azienda Ospedaliera Treviglio, Piazzale Ospedale 1, 24047, Treviglio, BG, Italy

    Fausto Petrelli, Mary Cabiddu, Andrea Coinu, Karen Borgonovo, Mara Ghilardi, Veronica Lonati & Sandro Barni

Authors
  1. Fausto Petrelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mary Cabiddu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrea Coinu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Karen Borgonovo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mara Ghilardi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Veronica Lonati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Sandro Barni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fausto Petrelli.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Petrelli, F., Cabiddu, M., Coinu, A. et al. Adjuvant dose-dense chemotherapy in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Breast Cancer Res Treat 151, 251–259 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-015-3405-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-015-3405-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation