Advertisement

International Journal of Clinical Oncology

, Volume 19, Issue 6, pp 982–988 | Cite as

Tamoxifen versus tamoxifen plus doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide as adjuvant therapy for node-positive postmenopausal breast cancer: results of a Japan Clinical Oncology Group Study (JCOG9401)

  • Tadahiko Shien
  • Hiroji Iwata
  • Kenjiro Aogi
  • Takashi Fukutomi
  • Kenichi Inoue
  • Takayuki Kinoshita
  • Masato Takahashi
  • Akira Matsui
  • Taro Shibata
  • Haruhiko Fukuda
Original Article

Abstract

Background

Cancer subtype has recently become an increasingly important consideration when deciding the treatment strategy for breast cancer. For the estrogen receptor positive (ER+) subtype, the efficacy of adjuvant endocrine therapy is definitive, but that of adjuvant chemotherapy is controversial.

Methods

In order to evaluate the effect of adding doxorubicin (A) and cyclophosphamide (C) to tamoxifen (TAM) (ACT) on the overall survival (OS) of node-positive postmenopausal breast cancer (PMBC) patients, we conducted a randomized trial. Eligibility criteria included pathologically node-positive (n = 1–9) PMBC, stage I–IIIA disease. Patients were randomized to receive either TAM (20 mg daily) for 2 years or A (40 mg/m2) and C (500 mg/m2) plus TAM (ACT) as adjuvant therapy following surgery.

Results

One hundred twenty-nine patients were recruited (TAM 64, ACT 65) between October 1994 and July 1999. The hazard ratios for OS and relapse-free survival (RFS) were 0.58 (95 % CI 0.24–1.39; log-rank p = 0.22) and 0.45 (95 %CI 0.24–0.86; log-rank p = 0.013), respectively, in favor of ACT. The 5-year OS and RFS were 76.9 % (ER+ 87.1 %, ER− 53.3 %) and 54.9 % (ER+ 59.3 %, ER− 42.9 %) for TAM and 85.0 % (ER+ 90.0 %, ER− 77.1 %) and 76.7 % (ER+ 76.9 %, ER− 76.0 %) for ACT. A higher proportion of the patients receiving ACT than those receiving TAM experienced grade 3 decreased white blood cell count and grade 2–3 nausea.

Conclusion

The efficacy of adding AC to TAM was not high for ER+, node-positive PMBC. However, adjuvant ACT therapy was considered to be effective for ER−, node-positive PMBC.

Keywords

Breast cancer Adjuvant treatment Node-positive Postmenopausal women 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Ms. Kyoko Minamoto and Kazumi Kubota for data management, Dr. Naoki Ishizuka and Mr. Junki Mizusawa for statistical analyses, and Dr. Kenichi Nakamura for the preparation of the manuscript. This study was supported by a National Cancer Center Research and Development Fund (23-A-16 and 23-A-17) and Grants-in-Aid for Cancer Research (5S-1, 8S-1, 11S-1, 11S-4, 14S-1, 14S-4, 17S-1, 17S-5, 20S-1 and 20S-6) from the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan.

Conflict of interest

Hiroji Iwata received honoraria for speaking events from Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Tadahiko Shien, Kenjiro Aogi, Takashi Fukutomi, Kenichi Inoue, Takayuki Kinoshita, Masato Takahashi, Akira Matsui, Taro Shibata, Haruhiko Fukuda had no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (1990) Treatment of early breast cancer: worldwide evidence in 1985–1990. A systematic overview of all available randomized trials in early breast cancer of adjuvant endocrine and cytotoxic therapy-treatment of early breast cancer, vol 1. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 21–49Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    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(9472):1687–1717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Consensus conference (1985) Adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. JAMA 254:3461–3463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Glick JH, Gelber RD, Goldhirsch A et al (1992) Meeting highlights: adjuvant therapy for primary breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 84:1479–1485PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fisher B, Redmond C, Legault-Poisson S et al (1990) Postoperative chemotherapy and tamoxifen compared with tamoxifen alone in the treatment of positive node breast cancer patients aged 50 years and older with tumors responsive to tamoxifen: results from the national surgical adjuvant breast and bowel project B-16. J Clin Oncol 8:1005–1018PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tobinai K, Kohno A, Shimada Y et al (1993) Toxicity grading criteria of the Japan Clinical Oncology Group. The Clinical Trial Review Committee of the Japan Clinical Oncology Group. Jpn J Clin Oncol 23(4):250–257PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gelber RD, Goldhirsch A (1986) A new endpoint for the assessment of adjuvant therapy in postmenopausal women with operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 4:1772–1779PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boccardo F, Rubagotti A, Amoroso D et al (1992) Chemotherapy versus tamoxifen versus chemotherapy plus tamoxifen in node positive, oestrogen receptor positive breast cancer patients. An update at 7 years of the 1st GROCTA Trial. Eur J Cancer 28:673–680PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pearson OH, Hubay CA, Gordon NH et al (1989) Endocrine versus endocrine plus five-drug chemotherapy in postmenopausal women with stage II estrogen receptor positive breast cancer. Cancer 64:1819–1823PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pritchard KI, Paterson AH, Paul NA et al (1996) Increased thromboembolic complications with concurrent tamoxifen and chemotherapy in a randomized trial of adjuvant therapy for women with breast cancer. National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group Breast Cancer Site Group. J Clin Oncol 14(10):2731–2737PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pagani O, Gelber S, Simoncini E et al (2009) Is adjuvant chemotherapy of benefit for postmenopausal women who receive endocrine treatment for highly endocrine-responsive, node-positive breast cancer? International Breast Cancer Study Group Trials VII and 12-93. Breast Cancer Res Treat 116(3):491–500PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fossati R, Confalonieri C, Torri V et al (1998) Cytotoxic and hormonal treatment for metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review of published randomized trials involving 31,510 women. J Clin Oncol 16(10):3439–3460PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fisher B, Anderson S, Tan-Chiu E et al (2001) Tamoxifen and chemotherapy for axillary node-negative, estrogen receptor negative breast cancer: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-23. J Clin Oncol 19(4):931–942PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (1998) Tamoxifen for early breast cancer: an overview of the randomized trials. Lancet 351(9114):1451–1467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Coates AS et al (2011) Strategies for subtypes—dealing with the diversity of breast cancer: highlights of the St. Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2011. Ann Oncol 22(8):1736–1747PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Paik S, Tang G, Shak S et al (2006) Gene expression and benefit of chemotherapy in women with node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 24(23):3726–3734PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Albain KS, Barlow WE, Shak S et al (2010) Prognostic and predictive value of the 21-gene recurrence score assay in postmenopausal women with node-positive, oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer on chemotherapy: a retrospective analysis of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 11(1):55–65PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hugh J, Hanson J, Cheang MC et al (2009) Breast cancer subtypes and response to docetaxel in node-positive breast cancer: use of an immunohistochemical definition in the BCIRG 001 trial. J Clin Oncol 27:1168–1176Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Penault-Llorca F, André F, Sagan C et al (2009) Ki-67 expression and docetaxel efficacy in patients with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 27(17):2809–2815PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Niikura N, Iwamoto T, Masuda S et al (2012) Immunohistochemical Ki67 labeling index has similar proliferation predictive power to various gene signatures in breast cancer. Cancer Sci 103(8):1508–1512PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dowsett M, Nielsen TO, A’Hern R et al (2011) Assessment of Ki67 in breast cancer: recommendations from the International Ki67 in Breast Cancer Working Group. JNCI. J Natl Cancer Inst 103:1656–1664Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Society of Clinical Oncology 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tadahiko Shien
    • 1
  • Hiroji Iwata
    • 2
  • Kenjiro Aogi
    • 3
  • Takashi Fukutomi
    • 4
  • Kenichi Inoue
    • 5
  • Takayuki Kinoshita
    • 4
  • Masato Takahashi
    • 6
  • Akira Matsui
    • 7
  • Taro Shibata
    • 8
  • Haruhiko Fukuda
    • 8
  1. 1.Department of Breast and Endocrine SurgeryOkayama University HospitalOkayamaJapan
  2. 2.Department of Breast OncologyAichi Cancer Center HospitalNagoyaJapan
  3. 3.Department of SurgeryNational Shikoku Cancer CenterMatsuyamaJapan
  4. 4.Department of Breast SurgeryNational Cancer Center HospitalTokyoJapan
  5. 5.Department of Medical OncologySaitama Cancer CenterSaitamaJapan
  6. 6.Department of Breast SurgeryHokkaido Cancer CenterSapporoJapan
  7. 7.Department of SurgeryNational Hospital Organization Tokyo Medical CenterTokyoJapan
  8. 8.JCOG Data Center, Multi-institutional Clinical Trial Support CenterNational Cancer CenterTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations