Is It Important to Adapt Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy to the Visible Clinical Response? An Open Randomized Phase II Study Comparing Response-Guided and Standard Treatments in HER2-Negative Operable Breast Cancer. (30th January 2015)
- Record Type:
- Journal Article
- Title:
- Is It Important to Adapt Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy to the Visible Clinical Response? An Open Randomized Phase II Study Comparing Response-Guided and Standard Treatments in HER2-Negative Operable Breast Cancer. (30th January 2015)
- Main Title:
- Is It Important to Adapt Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy to the Visible Clinical Response? An Open Randomized Phase II Study Comparing Response-Guided and Standard Treatments in HER2-Negative Operable Breast Cancer
- Authors:
- Wang-Lopez, Qian
Mouret-Reynier, Marie-Ange
Savoye, Aude-Marie
Abrial, Catherine
Kwiatkowski, Fabrice
Garbar, Christian
DuBray-Longeras, Pascale
Eymard, Jean-Christophe
Lebouedec, Guillaume
Vanpraagh, Isabelle
Penault-Llorca, Frederique
Chollet, Philippe
Cure, Hervé - Abstract:
- Abstract: Author Summary: Background: Neoadjuvant treatment provides a unique opportunity to evaluate individual tumor sensitivity. This study evaluated whether a response-guided strategy could improve clinical outcome compared with a standard treatment. Methods: Overall, 264 previously untreated stage II–III operable breast cancer patients were randomized to receive either standard treatment (arm A, n = 131), consisting of fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FEC100: 500, 100, and 500 mg/m 2, respectively, for 3 cycles) followed by docetaxel (100 mg/m 2 for 3 cycles), or adapted treatment (arm B, n = 133), beginning with 2 cycles of FEC100 and switching to docetaxel if tumor size decreased by <30% after 2 cycles or <50% after 4 cycles of FEC100 (ultrasound assessments according to World Health Organization criteria). Otherwise, FEC100 was given for six cycles before surgery. Intent-to-treat analysis was performed. Results: Similar results were observed for clinical response (objective response was 54% vs 56%, p = .18), breast conservation surgery (BCS; 67% vs 68%, p = .97), and pathological complete response rate (Chevallier classification: 14% vs 11%, p = .68; Statloff classification: 16% vs 13%, p = .82) between arms A and B. Similar toxicities were observed, even with unbalanced numbers of FEC100 and docetaxel courses. Conclusion: Adapted and standard treatments had similar results in terms of tumor response, BCS rate, and tolerability. Further survivalAbstract: Author Summary: Background: Neoadjuvant treatment provides a unique opportunity to evaluate individual tumor sensitivity. This study evaluated whether a response-guided strategy could improve clinical outcome compared with a standard treatment. Methods: Overall, 264 previously untreated stage II–III operable breast cancer patients were randomized to receive either standard treatment (arm A, n = 131), consisting of fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FEC100: 500, 100, and 500 mg/m 2, respectively, for 3 cycles) followed by docetaxel (100 mg/m 2 for 3 cycles), or adapted treatment (arm B, n = 133), beginning with 2 cycles of FEC100 and switching to docetaxel if tumor size decreased by <30% after 2 cycles or <50% after 4 cycles of FEC100 (ultrasound assessments according to World Health Organization criteria). Otherwise, FEC100 was given for six cycles before surgery. Intent-to-treat analysis was performed. Results: Similar results were observed for clinical response (objective response was 54% vs 56%, p = .18), breast conservation surgery (BCS; 67% vs 68%, p = .97), and pathological complete response rate (Chevallier classification: 14% vs 11%, p = .68; Statloff classification: 16% vs 13%, p = .82) between arms A and B. Similar toxicities were observed, even with unbalanced numbers of FEC100 and docetaxel courses. Conclusion: Adapted and standard treatments had similar results in terms of tumor response, BCS rate, and tolerability. Further survival outcome data are expected. … (more)
- Is Part Of:
- Oncologist. Volume 20:Number 3(2015)
- Journal:
- Oncologist
- Issue:
- Volume 20:Number 3(2015)
- Issue Display:
- Volume 20, Issue 3 (2015)
- Year:
- 2015
- Volume:
- 20
- Issue:
- 3
- Issue Sort Value:
- 2015-0020-0003-0000
- Page Start:
- 243
- Page End:
- 244
- Publication Date:
- 2015-01-30
- Subjects:
- Oncology -- Periodicals
Tumors -- Periodicals
Cancérologie -- Périodiques
Tumeurs -- Périodiques
Oncology
Tumors
Neoplasms
Electronic journals
Periodicals
Periodicals
616.994 - Journal URLs:
- https://academic.oup.com/oncolo ↗
https://theoncologist.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/1549490x ↗
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ ↗ - DOI:
- 10.1634/theoncologist.2014-0400 ↗
- Languages:
- English
- ISSNs:
- 1083-7159
- Deposit Type:
- Legaldeposit
- View Content:
- Available online (eLD content is only available in our Reading Rooms) ↗
- Physical Locations:
- British Library DSC - 6256.890000
British Library DSC - BLDSS-3PM
British Library HMNTS - ELD Digital store - Ingest File:
- 20723.xml