Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

New data on adjuvant therapy for breast cancer

  • Published:
Current Oncology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the past year, the results of the third Oxford Overview and recommendations from the St. Gallen International Consensus Panel on adjuvant treatment for breast cancer were published. Reports of trials addressing the role of anthracyclines and taxanes, as well as the optimal dosing schedule for cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and 5-fluorouracil, also appeared. Data show that primary therapy increases the rate of breast conservation but not survival rates. The initial results of trials of high-dose chemotherapy with autologous hematopoietic support have been mixed. The usefulness of sentinel node biopsy in minimizing surgical morbidity and of biologic markers in predicting response to adjuvant therapy are areas of active research.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References and Recommended Reading

  1. Tamoxifen for early breast cancer: an overview of the randomised trials. Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group. Lancet. 1998, 351:1451–1467. The 1995 Oxford Overview of adjuvant tamoxifen trials showed a significant reduction in risk for recurrence and death in both pre- and postmenopausal women, primarily those with hormone receptor-positive disease.

  2. Polychemotherapy for early breast cancer: an overview of the randomised trials. Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group. Lancet 1998, 352:930–942. The 1995 Oxford Overview of 69 adjuvant chemotherapy trials that were started before 1990 in 30,000 women shows a reduction in risk for recurrence and death, regardless of age and nodal status.

  3. Goldhirsch A, Glick JH, Gelber RD, Senn HJ: Meeting highlights: International Consensus Panel on the Treatment of Primary Breast Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998, 90:1601–1608. This consensus panel, which meets triennially, presents recommendations for adjuvant therapy from an international group of breast cancer specialists.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Jones S, Clark G, Koleszar S, et al.: Low proliferative rate of invasive node negative breast cancer predicts for a favorable outcome without adjuvant chemotherapy [abstract]. Proc ASCO 1999, 18:70a.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Diab SG, Elledge RM, Clark GM: Favorable biological characteristics and clinical outcome in elderly patients with invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) of the breast [abstract]. Proc ASCO 1999, 18:70a.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hutchins L, Green S, Ravdin P, et al.: CMF versus CAF with and without tamoxifen in high-risk node-negative breast cancer patients and a natural history follow-up study in low-risk node-negative patients: first results of intergroup trial INT 0102 [abstract]. Proc ASCO 1998, 17:1a.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Krag D, Weaver D, Ashikaga T, et al.: The sentinel node in breast cancer—a multicenter validation study. N Engl J Med 1998, 339:941–946. This article and an accompanying editorial [8•] address the challenges of assessing and implementing a new surgical technique. The potential staging and therapeutic implications of the technique are also discussed.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. McMasters KM, Giuliano AE, Ross MI, et al.: Sentinellymph-node biopsy for breast cancer—not yet the standard of care. N Engl J Med 1998, 339:990–995. This editorial, which accompanies the study by Krag et al. [7•], addresses the challenges of assessing and implementing a new surgical technique. The potential staging and therapeutic implications of the technique are also discussed.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. 1997 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast and colorectal cancer. Adopted on November 7, 1997 by the American Society of Clinical Oncology. J Clin Oncol 1998, 16:793–795. This ASCO position paper provides evidence-based guidelines for the use of tumor markers in the screening and management of patients with breast cancer.

  10. Press MF, Bernstein L, Thomas PA, et al.: HER-2/neu gene amplification characterized by fluorescence in situ hybridization: poor prognosis in node-negative breast carcinomas. J Clin Oncol 1997, 15:2894–2904.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Elledge RM, Green S, Ciocca D, et al.: HER-2 expression and response to tamoxifen in estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer: a Southwest Oncology Group Study. Clin Cancer Res 1998, 4:7–12.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Nordenskjööld B, Hatschek T, Käällströöm A-C, et al.: Results of prolonged adjuvant tamoxifen therapy of breast cancer correlated to steroid receptor, S-phase and ERBB2 levels [abstract]. Proc ASCO 1999, 18:70a.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ravdin PM, Green S, Albain KS, et al.: Initial report of the SWOG biological correlative study of c-erbB-2 expression as a predictor of outcome in a trial comparing adjuvant CAFT with tamoxifen (T) alone [abstract]. Proc ASCO 1998, 17:97a.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ménard S, Valagussa P, Pilotti S, et al.: Benefit of CMF treatment in lymph node-positive breast cancer overexpressing HER2 [abstract]. Proc ASCO 1999, 18:69a. The results of long-term follow-up in the first trial of CMF in node-positive patients suggests a benefit of chemotherapy regardless of HER2 status.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Budman DR, Berry DA, Cirrincione CT, et al.: Dose and dose intensity as determinants of outcome in the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer. The Cancer and Leukemia Group B. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998, 90:1205–1211. This update of Cancer and Leukemia Group B trial 8541 shows the potential detrimental effects of giving node-positive patients less-than-standard doses of CAF.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Thor AD, Berry DA, Budman DR, et al.: erbB-2, p53, and efficacy of adjuvant therapy in lymph node-positive breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998, 90:1346–1360. This update on the correlative study of Cancer and Leukemia Group B 8541, with an accompanying editorial [18•], shows a possible interaction between HER2 expression and CAF dose but also highlights the possible pitfalls of retrospective studies done using nonstandardized assays.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Paik S, Bryant J, Park C, et al.: erbB-2 and response to doxorubicin in patients with axillary lymph node-positive, hormone receptor-negative breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998, 90:1361–1370. This retrospective analysis of data from NSABP B-11 shows a potential correlation between HER2 overexpression and benefit from an anthracycline regimen.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Clark GM: Should selection of adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with breast cancer be based on erbB-2 status? [editorial]. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998, 90:1320–1321. This editorial accompanied the study by Thor et al. [16•].

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Roche PC, Ingle JN: Increased HER2 with U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved antibody [letter]. J Clin Oncol 1999, 17:434. This letter to the editor highlights the discrepancies seen in the results of immunohistochemical tests done using different methods and the need for standardization before the widespread clinical adoption of these assays.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Bonadonna G, Valagussa P, Moliterni A, et al.: Adjuvant cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil in nodepositive breast cancer: the results of 20 years of follow-up. N Engl J Med 1995, 332:901–906.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Rivkin SE, Green S, Lew D, et al.: Adjuvant CMFVP versus melphalan for operable breast cancer with positive axillary nodes: 23-year results of a Southwest Oncology Group Study [abstract]. Proc ASCO 1999, 18:69a.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Goldhirsch A, Coates AS, Colleoni M, et al.: Adjuvant chemoendocrine therapy in postmenopausal breast cancer: cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil dose and schedule may make a difference. International Breast Cancer Study Group. J Clin Oncol 1998, 16:1358–1362. This review suggests that the conflicting results of adjuvant chemoendocrine therapy in postmenopausal patients may be related to the choice of CMF dose and schedule.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Levine MN, Bramwell VH, Pritchard KI, et al.: Randomized trial of intensive cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and fluorouracil chemotherapy compared with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil in premenopausal women with nodepositive breast cancer. National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. J Clin Oncol 1998, 16:2651–2658.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Mouridsen T, Andersen J, Andersson M, et al.: Adjuvant anthracycline in breast cancer. Improved outcome in premenopausal patients following substitution of methotrexate in the CMF combination with epirubicin [abstract]. Proc ASCO 1999, 18:68a.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Henderson IC, Berry D, Demetri G, et al.: Improved diseasefree (DFS) and overall survival (OS) from the addition of sequential paclitaxel (T) but not from the escalation of doxorubicin (A) dose level in the adjuvant chemotherapy of patients (PTS) with node-positive breast cancer (BC) [abstract]. Proc ASCO 1998, 17:101a. Cancer and Leukemia Group B 9344 showed a smaller risk for recurrence and death at 18 months in node-positive patients with the addition of paclitaxel after AC, but it showed no benefit with an increase in anthracycline dose.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Hudis C, Seidman A, Baselga J, et al.: Sequential dose-dense doxorubicin, paclitaxel, and cyclophosphamide for resectable high-risk breast cancer: feasibility and efficacy. J Clin Oncol 1999, 17:93–100.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Fumoleau P, Bréémond A, Kerbrat P, et al.: Better outcome of premenopausal node-positive (N+) breast cancer patients (pts) treated with 6 cycles vs 3 cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy: Eight year follow-up results of FASG 01 [abstract]. Proc ASCO 1999, 18:67a.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Fetting JH, Gray R, Fairclough DL, et al.: Sixteen-week multidrug regimen versus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and fluorouracil as adjuvant therapy for node-positive, receptornegative breast cancer: an Intergroup study. J Clin Oncol 1998, 16:2382–2391.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Bezwoda WR: Randomised, controlled trial of high dose chemotherapy (HD-CNVp) versus standard dose (CAF) chemotherapy for high risk, surgically treated, primary breast cancer [abstract]. Proc ASCO 1999, 18:2a. Annotation for references 29–33 follows reference 33.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Peters WG, Rosner G, Vredenburgh J, et al.: A prospective, randomized comparison of two doses of combination alkyating agents (AA) as consolidation after CAF in high-risk primary breast cancer involving ten or more axillary lymph nodes (LN): Preliminary results of CALGB 9082/SWOG 9114/ NCIC MA-13 [abstract]. Proc ASCO 1999, 18:1a.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Bergh J, et al.: Results from a randomized adjuvant breast cancer study with high dose chemotherapy with CTCb supported by autologous bone marrow stem cells versus dose escalated and tailored FEC therapy [abstract]. Proc ASCO 1999, 18:2a.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hortobagyi GN, Buzdar AU, Champlin R, et al.: Lack of efficacy of adjuvant high-dose (HD) tandem combination chemotherapy (CT) for high-risk primary breast cancer (HRPBC)—a randomized trial [abstract]. Proc ASCO 1998, 17:471a.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Rodenhuis S, Richel DJ, van der Wall E, et al.: Randomised trial of high-dose chemotherapy and haemopoietic progenitorcell support in operable breast cancer with extensive axillary lymph-node involvement. Lancet 1998, 352:515–521. With the exception of the South African trial [29•], studies of highdose chemotherapy in the adjuvant setting have not shown any conclusive evidence favoring this more aggressive and potentially toxic approach.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Fisher B, Bryant J, Wolmark N, et al.: Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on the outcome of women with operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1998, 16:2672–2685. The largest of the randomized trials of preoperative chemotherapy shows a small increase in breast-conserving therapy but similar survival and recurrence rates associated with the use of primary chemotherapy.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Makris A, Powles TJ, Ashley SE, et al.: A reduction in the requirements for mastectomy in a randomized trial of neoadjuvant chemoendocrine therapy in primary breast cancer. Ann Oncol 1998, 9:1179–1184.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Gianni L, Zambetti M, Moliterni A, et al.: Cardiac sequelae in operable breast cancer patients after CMF ± doxorubicin (A) ± irradiation [abstract]. Proc ASCO 1999, 18:68a. This long-term follow-up study of breast cancer survivors shows subclinical evidence of myocardial damage in women randomly assigned to an anthracycline regimen.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Ovarian ablation in early breast cancer: overview of the randomised trials. Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group. Lancet 1996, 348:1189–1196.

  38. Ejlertsen B, Dombernowsky P, Mouridsen HT, et al.: Comparable effect of ovarian ablation (OA) and CMF chemotherapy in premenopausal hormone receptor positive breast cancer patients (PRP) [abstract]. Proc ASCO 1999, 18:66a.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Jakesz R, Hausmaninger H, Samonigg H, et al.: Comparison of adjuvant therapy with tamoxifen and goserelin vs. CMF in premenopausal stage I and II hormone-responsive breast cancer patients: Four-year results of Austrian Breast Cancer Study Group (ABCSG) Trial 5 [abstract]. Proc ASCO 1999, 18:67a.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Rutqvist LE: Zoladex and tamoxifen as adjuvant therapy in premenopausal breast cancer: A randomised trial by the Cancer Research Campaign (C.R.C.) Breast Cancer Trials Group, the Stockholm Breast Cancer Study Group, The South-East Sweden Breast Cancer Group & the Gruppo Interdisciplinare Valutazione Interventi in Oncologia (G.I.V.I.O) [abstract]. Proc ASCO 1999, 18:67a.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Davidson N, O’Neill A, Vukov A, et al.: Effect of chemohormonal therapy in premenopausal, node (+), receptor (+) breast cancer: An Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Phase III Intergroup Trial (E5188, INT-0101) [abstract]. Proc ASCO 1999, 18:67a.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Powles TJ, Paterson AHG, Nevantaus A, et al.: Adjuvant clodronate reduces the incidence of bone metastases in patients with primary operable breast cancer [abstract]. Proc ASCO 1998, 17:123a.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Powles TJ, McCloskey E, Paterson AH, et al.: Oral clodronate and reduction in loss of bone mineral density in women with operable primary breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998, 90:704–708.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Diel IJ, Solomayer EF, Costa SD, et al.: Reduction in new metastases in breast cancer with adjuvant clodronate treatment. N Engl J Med 1998, 339:357–363.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Saarto T, Blomqvist C, Virkkunen P, Elomaa I: No reduction of bone metastases with adjuvant clodronate treatment in node-positive breast cancer patients [abstract]. Proc ASCO 1999, 18:128a.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Medical Oncology, Room 130, The Johns Hopkins Oncology Center, 600 North Wolfe Street, 21287, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Antonio C. Wolff MD

Authors
  1. Antonio C. Wolff MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nancy E. Davidson MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wolff, A.C., Davidson, N.E. New data on adjuvant therapy for breast cancer. Curr Oncol Rep 1, 31–37 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11912-999-0007-5

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11912-999-0007-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation