scholarly journals ASO Author Reflections: Breast Cancer: What is in a Positive Node?

Author(s):  
Roi Weiser ◽  
V. Suzanne Klimberg
Keyword(s):  
1990 ◽  
Vol 8 (9) ◽  
pp. 1483-1496 ◽  
Author(s):  
B Fisher ◽  
A M Brown ◽  
N V Dimitrov ◽  
R Poisson ◽  
C Redmond ◽  
...  

The National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) implemented protocol B-15 to compare 2 months of Adriamycin (doxorubicin; Adria Laboratories, Columbus, OH) and cyclophosphamide (AC) with 6 months of conventional cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) in patients with breast cancer nonresponsive to tamoxifen (TAM, T). A second aim was to determine whether AC followed in 6 months by intravenous (IV) CMF was more effective than AC without reinduction therapy. Through 3 years of follow-up, findings from 2,194 patients indicate no significant difference in disease-free survival (DFS, P = .5), distant disease-free survival (DDFS, P = .5) or survival (S, P = .8) among the three groups. Since the outcome from AC and CMF was almost identical, the issue arises concerning which regimen is more appropriate for the treatment of breast cancer patients. AC seems preferable since, following total mastectomy, AC was completed on day 63 versus day 154 for conventional CMF; patients visited health professionals three times as often for conventional CMF as for AC; women on AC received therapy on each of 4 days versus on each of 84 days for conventional CMF; and nausea-control medication was given for about 84 days to conventional CMF patients versus for about 12 days to patients on AC. The difference in the amount of alopecia between the two treatment groups was less than anticipated. While alopecia was almost universally observed following AC therapy, 71% of the CMF patients also had hair loss and, in 41%, the loss was greater than 50%. This study and NSABP B-16, which evaluates the worth of AC therapy in TAM-responsive patients, indicate the merit of 2 months of AC therapy for all positive-node breast cancer patients.


2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18) ◽  
pp. 2509-2515 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Schmid ◽  
Michael Untch ◽  
Valentin Kossé ◽  
Grigorij Bondar ◽  
Leonid Vassiljev ◽  
...  

Purpose Ovarian suppression with luteinizing hormone–releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists is an effective adjuvant treatment for premenopausal women with estrogen receptor (ER) –positive breast cancer. Whereas monthly LHRH agonist therapy has been well established, the value of every-3-months (3-monthly) formulations is unclear. Patients and Methods This randomized phase III trial was performed to compare the 3-monthly depot LHRH agonist leuprorelin acetate (LAD-3M; n = 299) and chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF; n = 300) in pre- or perimenopausal patients with ER-positive, node-positive breast cancer. Results With a median follow-up of 5.8 years, recurrence-free survival was similar for patients treated with LAD-3M or CMF (hazard ratio [HR], 1.19; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.51; P = .15). There was no substantial heterogeneity in the relative treatment effect among subgroups defined by age, progesterone receptor (PR) status, nodal status, hormone levels, or menstrual recovery after treatment. Exploratory overall survival analysis favored LAD-3M (HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.99; P = .005). Chemotherapy-related adverse effects such as nausea, vomiting, and alopecia were more common with CMF, whereas symptoms of estrogen suppression such as hot flushes and sweating were initially more pronounced with LAD-3M. Conclusion The 3-monthly depot LHRH-agonist leuprorelin acetate is an effective adjuvant treatment in premenopausal patients with hormone receptor–positive, node-positive breast cancer that is not inferior to CMF.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document