Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy FEC 100 and Docetaxel 75 versus AC and Docetaxel in locally advanced breast cancer: a randomized clinical study

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Medical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of the study was to assess and compare the clinical and pathological response and the toxicity profile between neoadjuvant chemotherapy FEC followed by docetaxel versus AC followed by docetaxel in locally advanced breast cancer patients. Between June 2013 and June 2014, 148 patients diagnosed with LABC were randomized into two groups with 74 in each group. Group 1 received AC (adriamycin 60 mg/m2, cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2) followed by docetaxel 100 mg/m2 with primary GCSF prophylaxis and group 2 received FEC (5-fluorouracil 500 mg/m2, epirubicin 100 mg/m2, cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m2) followed by docetaxel 75 mg/m2. MRM/BCS was performed for all patients after NACT and assessed for pathological response. Toxicity profile was assessed according to CTCAE version 4. All baseline parameters were equally matched between the two regimens. 90 % of patients completed NACT and underwent surgery. pCR rates were 31 % in group 1 and 34 % in group 2 without any difference. Any grade of hand–foot syndrome was significantly high in group 1 as compared to group 2. Grade 3 and grade 4 neutropenia and febrile neutropenia were significantly high in group 1 as compared to group 2. Median follow-up was 13.7 months (range, 2.9–25 months). There was no difference in the 2-year PFS between group 1 and group 2 (70.9 vs. 73.8 %, respectively) and OS (87.8 vs. 91.8 %, respectively) in our study population. Chemotherapy with FEC followed by docetaxel can be considered as an optimal neoadjuvant regimen in LABC as compared to AC followed by docetaxel.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fact Sheets by Cancer. [cited 2015 Feb 8]. http://globocan.iarc.fr/Pages/fact_sheets_cancer.aspx.

  2. Desai PB. Breast cancer profile in India: experiences at the Tata Memorial Hospital, Bombay. In: Paterson AHG, Lees AW, editors. Fundamental Problems in Breast Cancer. Springer US; 1987 [cited 2015 Feb 8]. p. 273–9. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4613-2049-4_32.

  3. Singletary SE, Allred C, Ashley P, Bassett LW, Berry D, Bland KI, et al. Revision of the American joint committee on cancer staging system for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(17):3628–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lena MD, Zucali R, Viganotti G, Valagussa P, Bonadonna G. Combined chemotherapy-radiotherapy approach in locally advanced (T3b-T4) breast cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 1978;1(1):53–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Sachelarie I, Grossbard ML, Chadha M, Feldman S, Ghesani M, Blum RH. Primary systemic therapy of breast cancer. Oncologist. 2006;11(6):574–89.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Wolmark N, Wang J, Mamounas E, Bryant J, Fisher B. Preoperative chemotherapy in patients with operable breast cancer: nine-year results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-18. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2001;30:96–102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Management of Locally Advanced Breast Cancer| Cancer Network. 1997 [cited 2015 Feb 9]. http://www.cancernetwork.com/review-article/management-locally-advanced-breast-cancer.

  8. Valero V, Buzdar AU, Hortobagyi GN. Locally advanced breast cancer. Oncologist. 1996;1(1 & 2):8–17.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Mazouni C, Peintinger F, Wan-Kau S, Andre F, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Symmans WF, et al. Residual ductal carcinoma in situ in patients with complete eradication of invasive breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not adversely affect patient outcome. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2007;25(19):2650–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Puglisi F, Mansutti M, Aprile G, Minisini AM, Di Loreto C, Bazzocchi M, et al. Tumor shrinkage evaluation during and after preoperative doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by docetaxel in patients with breast cancer. Anticancer Res. 2004;24(4):2487–93.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bear HD, Anderson S, Smith RE, Geyer CE, Mamounas EP, Fisher B, et al. 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 Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2006;24(13):2019–27.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Ohnoa S, Toi M, Kuroi K, Nakamura S, Iwata H, Kusama M, et al. Update results of FEC followed by docetaxel neoadjuvant trials for primary breast cancer. Biomed Pharmacother. 2005;59(Suppl 2):S323–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Abe H, Umeda T, Tanaka M, Kawai Y, Mori T, Cho H, et al. Feasibility of FEC 100 followed by DOC 100 as adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. GanTo Kagaku Ryoho. 2010;37(8):1483–7.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Von Minckwitz G, Raab G, Caputo A, Schütte M, Hilfrich J, Blohmer JU, et al. Doxorubicin with cyclophosphamide followed by docetaxel every 21 days compared with doxorubicin and docetaxel every 14 days as preoperative treatment in operable breast cancer: the GEPARDUO study of the German Breast Group. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2005;23(12):2676–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Smith IC, Heys SD, Hutcheon AW, Miller ID, Payne S, Gilbert FJ, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: significantly enhanced response with docetaxel. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(6):1456–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kaufmann M, Eiermann W, Schuette M, Hilfrich J, Blohmer JU, Gerber B, et al. Long-term results from the neoadjuvant GeparDuo trial: A randomized, multicenter, open phase III study comparing a dose-intensified 8-week schedule of doxorubicin hydrochloride and docetaxel (ADoc) with a sequential 24-week schedule of doxorubicin hydrochloride/cyclophosphamide followed by docetaxel (AC-Doc) regimen as preoperative therapy (NACT) in patients (pts) with operable breast cancer (BC). J Clin Oncol. 2010 [cited 2015 Feb 11]; 28: 15 s(suppl; abstr 537).

  17. Gupta D, Raina V, Rath GK, Shukla NK, Mohanti BK, Sharma DN. Clinical and pathological response rates of docetaxel-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced breast cancer and comparison with anthracycline-based chemotherapies: eight-year experience from single centre. Indian J Cancer. 2011;48(4):410–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Bhattacharyya T, Sharma SC, Yadav BS, Singh R, Singh G. Outcome of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced breast cancer: a tertiary care centre experience. Indian J Med Paediatr Oncol Off J Indian Soc Med Paediatr Oncol. 2014;35(3):215–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Scholl SM, Fourquet A, Asselain B, Pierga JY, Vilcoq JR, Durand JC, et al. Neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy in premenopausal patients with tumours considered too large for breast conserving surgery: preliminary results of a randomised trial: S6. Eur J Cancer OxfEngl 1990. 1994; 30A(5): 645–52.

  20. JAMA Network|JAMA Surgery|The prognostic significance of lymph node metastases after preoperative chemotherapy for locally advanced breast cancer. [cited 2015 Feb 10]. http://archsurg.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=593641.

  21. Panjwani P, Epari S, Karpate A, Shirsat H, Rajsekharan P, Basak R, et al. Assessment of HER-2/neu status in breast cancer using fluorescence in situ hybridization and immunohistochemistry: experience of a tertiary cancer referral centre in India. Indian J Med Res. 2010;132:287–94.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. ASCO and the CAP Release Updated Guideline on HER2 Testing in Breast Cancer. [cited 2015 Feb 18]. http://www.asco.org/press-center/asco-and-cap-release-updated-guideline-her2-testing-breast-cancer.

  23. Abedi M, Farrokh D, ShandizHomaei F, Joulaee A, Anbiaee R, Zandi B, et al. The validity of MRI in evaluation of tumor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced breast cancer. Iran J Cancer Prev. 2013;6(1):28–35.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Wright FC, Zubovits J, Gardner S, Fitzgerald B, Clemons M, Quan ML, et al. Optimal assessment of residual disease after neo-adjuvant therapy for locally advanced and inflammatory breast cancer–clinical examination, mammography, or magnetic resonance imaging? J Surg Oncol. 2010;101(7):604–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Shin HJ, Kim HH, Ahn JH, Kim S-B, Jung KH, Gong G, et al. Comparison of mammography, sonography, MRI and clinical examination in patients with locally advanced or inflammatory breast cancer who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Br J Radiol. 2011;84(1003):612–20.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Marinovich ML, Houssami N, Macaskill P, Sardanelli F, Irwig L, Mamounas EP, et al. Meta-analysis of magnetic resonance imaging in detecting residual breast cancer after neoadjuvant therapy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105(5):321–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medical Oncology, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Pondicherry, India

    K. M. Dhanraj, B. Dubashi, S. Kayal & Sunu Lazar Cyriac

  2. Department of Radiodiagnosis, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Pondicherry, India

    S. Gollapalli

Authors
  1. K. M. Dhanraj
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. B. Dubashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. Gollapalli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. Kayal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sunu Lazar Cyriac
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K. M. Dhanraj.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dhanraj, K.M., Dubashi, B., Gollapalli, S. et al. Comparison of efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy FEC 100 and Docetaxel 75 versus AC and Docetaxel in locally advanced breast cancer: a randomized clinical study. Med Oncol 32, 261 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12032-015-0697-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12032-015-0697-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation