Pathology & Oncology Research

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 541–550 | Cite as

Inflammatory Breast Cancer—Comparing the Effectivity of Preoperative Docetaxel-Epirubicine Protocol to Conventional Antracycline-Containing Chemotherapy to Achieve Clinical Benefit and Complete Pathological Response

  • Zsolt Horváth
  • László Torday
  • Erika Hitre
  • Erna Ganofszky
  • Éva Juhos
  • Ferenc Czeglédi
  • László Urbán
  • Csaba Polgár
  • István Láng
  • Sándor Eckhardt
  • Miklós Kásler
Research
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Our retrospective analysis compared the effectiveness of conventional antracycline-containing protocols (A+) and docetaxel/epirubicine (TE) as primary systemic chemotherapies (PSCT) for inflammatory breast cancer (IBC). Seventy IBC patients received either A + (n = 48) or TE (n = 22) as PSCT. The objective clinical response and clinical benefit rate of treated patients were 54.3% (A+: 54,2% vs. TE: 54,5%; p = 0,28) and 92.8% (A+: 91,7% vs. TE: 95,5%; p = 0,57), respectively. The clinical complete response rate (cCR) was 23.2% (A+: 27,1% vs. TE:4,5%; χ 2 = 4,79; p = 0,03) with 7.14% (A+: 10,4% vs. TE:0%; χ 2 = 2,47; p = 0,12) of pathological complete responses (pCR). The median progression free (PFS)/local progression free (LPFS)/overall survival (OS) was 2.0/5.4/4.0 years, respectively. Patients achieving cCR had a tendency for better survival parameters than patients with less than cCR. Response rates or survival data were not statistically different in the two chemotherapy (CT) treatment groups. The survival was not influenced by the number of CT cycles in either protocols. In this set of patients, the clinical efficacy of the two alternative primary systemic chemotherapies (A + and TE) is equivalent in the treatment of inflammatory breast cancer (IBC), despite of the significant difference in favour of A + noticed in CRs. Six cycles of CT could be enough for patients achieving CR, however sequential pre- and/or postoperative CT with non cross-resistant drugs should be considered for non-responders.

Keywords

Anthracycline Docetaxel Inflammatory breast cancer Pathological complete remission Primary systemic chemotherapy 

Abbreviations

IBC

Inflammatory breast cancer

BC

Breast cancer

LABC

Locally advanced breast cancer

PSCT

Primary systemic chemotherapy

CT

Chemotherapy

ST

Surgical treatment

RT

Radiotherapy

ET

Endocrine therapy

T

Docetaxel

TE

Docetaxel-epirubicine protocol

A+

Conventional second generation antracycline containing chemotherapy

TAC

Docetaxel—doxorubicine—cyclophosphamide protocol

cCR

Clinical complete remission

pCR

Pathological complete remission

PR

Partial remission

SD

Stable disease

PD

Progressive disease

PFS

Progression free survival

LPFS

Local progression free survival

OS

Overall survival

RR

Response rate

C.I

Confidence interval

DLI

Dermal lymphatic involvement

US

Ultrasound

AJCC

American Joint Committee on Cancer

ASCO

American Society of Clinical Oncology

NIH

National Institute of Health

NCCN

National Comprehensive Cancer Network

UICC

International Union Against Cancer

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

Notes

Conflict of Interest

None of the other authors have any financial and personal relationships with other people or organisations that could inappropriately influence this work reported or the conclusions, implications or opinions stated.

Funding

This study was prepared without any funding source.

Ethical approval was not required for this study

References

  1. 1.
    Levine PH, Steinhorn SC, Ries LG, Aron JL (1985) Inflammatory breast cancer: the experience of the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results (SEER) program. J Natl Cancer Inst 74:291–297PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hance KW, Anderson WF, Devesa SS et al (2005) Trends in inflammatory breast carcinoma incidence and survival: the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results program at the National Cancer Institute. J Natl Cancer Inst 97:966–975PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Giordano SH, Hortobagyi GN (2003) Inflammatory breast cancer: clinical progress and the main problems that must be addressed. Breast Cancer Res 5:284–288PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chang S, Parker SL, Pham T et al (1998) Inflammatory breast carcinoma incidence and survival: the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results program of the National Cancer Institute, 1975-1992. Cancer 82:2366–2372PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Haagensen CD (1971) Diseases of the breast. Saunders, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chevallier B, Bastit P, Graic Y et al (1993) The Centre H. Becquerel studies in inflammatory non metastatic breast cancer. Combined modality approach in 178 patients. Br J Cancer 67:594–601PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jaiyesimi IA, Buzdar AU, Hortobagyi G (1992) Inflammatory breast cancer: a review. J Clin Oncol 10:1014–1024PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gianni L, Eiermann W, Semiglazov V et al (2010) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with trastuzumab followed by adjuvant trastuzumab versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone, in patients with HER2-positive locally advanced breast cancer (the NOAH trial): a randomised controlled superiority trial with a parallel HER2-negative cohort. Lancet 375:377–384PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mehta RS, Schubbert T, Kong K (2008) Trastuzumab in inflammatory breast cancer. Ann Oncol 19:1815–1817PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ward S, Simpson E, Davis S et al (2007) Taxanes for the adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer: systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 11:1–144Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sinn HP, Schmid H, Junkermann H et al (1994) Histologic regression of breast cancer after primary (neoadjuvant) chemotherapy. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 54:552–558PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    von Minckwitz G, Kummel S, Vogel P et al (2008) Intensified neoadjuvant chemotherapy in early-responding breast cancer: phase III randomized GeparTrio study. J Natl Cancer Inst 100:552–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    von Minckwitz G, Kummel S, Vogel P et al (2008) Neoadjuvant vinorelbine-capecitabine versus docetaxel-doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide in early nonresponsive breast cancer: phase III randomized GeparTrio trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 100:542–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Low JA, Berman AW, Steinberg SM et al (2004) Long-term follow-up for locally advanced and inflammatory breast cancer patients treated with multimodality therapy. J Clin Oncol 22:4067–4074PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    de Matteis A, Nuzzo F, D’Aiuto G et al (2002) Docetaxel plus epidoxorubicin as neoadjuvant treatment in patients with large operable or locally advanced carcinoma of the breast: a single-center, phase II study. Cancer 94:895–901PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cristofanilli M, Valero V, Buzdar AU et al (2007) Inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) and patterns of recurrence: understanding the biology of a unique disease. Cancer 110:1436–1444PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Muller C, Caputo A, Schumacher M et al (2007) Clinical response by palpation during primary systemic therapy with four dose-dense cycles doxorubicin and docetaxel in patients with operable breast cancer: further results from a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Cancer 43:1654–1661PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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
  19. 19.
    Ueno NT, Buzdar AU, Singletary SE et al (1997) Combined-modality treatment of inflammatory breast carcinoma: twenty years of experience at M. D. Anderson Cancer Center. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 40:321–329PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Harris EE, Schultz D, Bertsch H et al (2003) Ten-year outcome after combined modality therapy for inflammatory breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 55:1200–1208PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bauer RL, Busch E, Levine E, Edge SB (1995) Therapy for inflammatory breast cancer: impact of doxorubicin-based therapy. Ann Surg Oncol 2:288–294PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rouzier R, Pusztai L, Delaloge S et al (2005) Nomograms to predict pathologic complete response and metastasis-free survival after preoperative chemotherapy for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 23:8331–8339PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Abrial SC, Penault-Llorca F, Delva R et al (2005) High prognostic significance of residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a retrospective study in 710 patients with operable breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 94:255–263PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chaturvedi S, McLaren C, Schofield AC et al (2005) Patterns of local and distant disease relapse in patients with breast cancer treated with primary chemotherapy: do patients with a complete pathological response differ from those with residual tumour in the breast? Breast Cancer Res Treat 93:151–158PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mazouni C, Kau SW, Frye D et al (2007) Inclusion of taxanes, particularly weekly paclitaxel, in preoperative chemotherapy improves pathologic complete response rate in estrogen receptor-positive breast cancers. Ann Oncol 18:874–880PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Panades M, Olivotto IA, Speers CH et al (2005) Evolving treatment strategies for inflammatory breast cancer: a population-based survival analysis. J Clin Oncol 23:1941–1950PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Baldini E, Gardin G, Giannessi PG et al (2003) Accelerated versus standard cyclophosphamide, epirubicin and 5-fluorouracil or cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil: a randomized phase III trial in locally advanced breast cancer. Ann Oncol 14:227–232PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Barker JL, Montague ED, Peters LJ (1980) Clinical experience with irradiation of inflammatory carcinoma of the breast with and without elective chemotherapy. Cancer 45:625–629PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cristofanilli M, Buzdar AU, Sneige N et al (2001) Paclitaxel in the multimodality treatment for inflammatory breast carcinoma. Cancer 92:1775–1782PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Smith IC, Heys SD, Hutcheon AW et al (2002) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: significantly enhanced response with docetaxel. J Clin Oncol 20:1456–1466PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Evans TR, Yellowlees A, Foster E et al (2005) Phase III randomized trial of doxorubicin and docetaxel versus doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide as primary medical therapy in women with breast cancer: an anglo-celtic cooperative oncology group study. J Clin Oncol 23:2988–2995PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    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
  33. 33.
    Gralow JR, Burstein HJ, Wood W et al (2008) Preoperative therapy in invasive breast cancer: pathologic assessment and systemic therapy issues in operable disease. J Clin Oncol 26:814–819PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wang B, Fu JF, Hong ZW (2009) Efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with FEC and TEC regimen on breast cancer. Ai Zheng 28:292–296PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Steger GG, Galid A, Gnant M et al (2007) Pathologic complete response with six compared with three cycles of neoadjuvant epirubicin plus docetaxel and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in operable breast cancer: results of ABCSG-14. J Clin Oncol 25:2012–2018PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Manga GP, Shahi PK, Urena MM et al (2009) Phase II study of neoadjuvant treatment with doxorubicin, docetaxel, and capecitabine (ATX) in locally advanced or inflammatory breast cancer. Breast Cancer 17:205–211PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Damast S, Ho AY, Montgomery L et al (2009) Locoregional Outcomes of Inflammatory Breast Cancer Patients Treated with Standard Fractionation Radiation and Daily Skin Bolus in the Taxane Era. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 77:1105–1112PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Schmidt M, Bremer E, Hasenclever D et al (2007) Role of the progesterone receptor for paclitaxel resistance in primary breast cancer. Br J Cancer 96:241–247PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Voordeckers M, Vinh-Hung V, Van de Steene J et al (2004) The lymph node ratio as prognostic factor in node-positive breast cancer. Radiother Oncol 70:225–230PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Thomas E, Holmes FA, Smith TL et al (2004) The use of alternate, non-cross-resistant adjuvant chemotherapy on the basis of pathologic response to a neoadjuvant doxorubicin-based regimen in women with operable breast cancer: long-term results from a prospective randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 22:2294–2302PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Arányi Lajos Foundation 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zsolt Horváth
    • 1
  • László Torday
    • 3
  • Erika Hitre
    • 1
  • Erna Ganofszky
    • 1
  • Éva Juhos
    • 1
  • Ferenc Czeglédi
    • 1
  • László Urbán
    • 4
  • Csaba Polgár
    • 2
  • István Láng
    • 1
  • Sándor Eckhardt
    • 5
  • Miklós Kásler
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Chemotherapy B and Clinical PharmacologyNational Institute of OncologyBudapestHungary
  2. 2.Department of RadiotherapyNational Institute of OncologyBudapestHungary
  3. 3.Department of OncotherapyUniversity of SzegedSzegedHungary
  4. 4.Oncopulmonolgic CentrePetz Aladár County et University Teaching HospitalGyőrHungary
  5. 5.DGNational Institute of OncologyBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations