Recommendations for the use of primary systemic therapy (PST) among patients with operable breast cancer have been developed

2003 ◽  
Vol &NA; (1400) ◽  
pp. 3
Author(s):  
&NA;
1991 ◽  
Vol 63 (4) ◽  
pp. 561-566 ◽  
Author(s):  
EDC Anderson ◽  
APM Forrest ◽  
RA Hawkins ◽  
TJ Anderson ◽  
RCF Leonard ◽  
...  

2012 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 125-131 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Llombart-Cussac ◽  
Ángel Guerrero ◽  
Antonio Galán ◽  
Vicente Carañana ◽  
Elvira Buch ◽  
...  

1997 ◽  
Vol 76 (8) ◽  
pp. 1099-1105 ◽  
Author(s):  
DA Cameron ◽  
EDC Anderson ◽  
P Levack ◽  
RA Hawkins ◽  
TJ Anderson ◽  
...  

2007 ◽  
Vol 248 (2) ◽  
pp. 175-185 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valentina Guarneri ◽  
Antonio Frassoldati ◽  
Simona Giovannelli ◽  
Francesca Borghi ◽  
PierFranco Conte

2000 ◽  
Vol 18 (7) ◽  
pp. 1558-1569 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio C. Wolff ◽  
Nancy E. Davidson

PURPOSE: Laboratory studies suggest that primary systemic therapy (PST) could improve control of micrometastatic disease and impact on overall survival (OS). This article examines the rationale for and preclinical and clinical data of PST in operable breast cancer and the potential role of intermediate biomarkers as predictive and/or prognostic factors for response and survival. DESIGN AND METHOD: We conducted an extensive literative review (including MEDLINE) on preclinical studies, single-arm feasibility studies, large randomized single- and multi-institutional trials, and laboratory correlate studies of PST in breast cancer. RESULTS: Small trials in locally advanced disease showed high initial rates of response and local control. Six randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of PST for palpable, operable breast cancer have been reported since 1991 (from 204 to 1,523 patients each). These data clearly show a small but significant (less than 10%) absolute increase in the use of breast-conservation treatment (BCT) with similar rates of local control. Although one study showed better disease-free survival (DFS) and another showed better OS, most studies did not show any survival advantage of primary versus adjuvant systemic therapy. Thus far, pathologic complete response seems to be the best predictor of survival, but clinical response assessment correlates poorly with pathologic response. Pilot studies demonstrated feasibility of procuring tissue at diagnosis and after treatment for assays of potential intermediate biomarkers. Initial data suggest a potential correlation between markers of proliferation and apoptosis and in vivo chemotherapy sensitivity. CONCLUSION: Thus far, RCTs of PST versus standard adjuvant therapy have not shown any clear benefit for DFS or OS in early breast cancer. Ongoing trials should determine if specific subsets of patients at risk would benefit from additional systemic therapy and the potential role of intermediate biomarkers in identifying such women. Although PST results in a small increase in the rate of BCT with similar rates of local control, current PST strategies should not replace standard adjuvant approaches. Rather, they represent an acceptable alternative to women with palpable, operable tumors and an excellent arena for clinical trials.


2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 537-537
Author(s):  
Milvia Zambetti ◽  
José Baselga ◽  
Wolfgang Eiermann ◽  
Vicente Guillem ◽  
Vladimir Semiglazov ◽  
...  

537 Background: At the time the ECTO was designed in 1996, taxanes were only indicated for patients with metastatic breast cancer. However, paclitaxel and docetaxel were still to be tested in the adjuvant setting. In addition there was relatively scarce information on the comparative efficacy of neoadjuvant and adjuvant regimens. The ECTO trial was designed to evaluate the addition of paclitaxel to an anthracycline-based adjuvant regimen and to compare this combination with the same regimen given as primary systemic (neoadjuvant) therapy. Methods: A total of 1,355 women with operable breast cancer were randomized to one of three treatments: 1) surgery followed by adjuvant single agent doxorubicin (A) followed by CMF (arm A); 2) surgery followed by adjuvant paclitaxel plus doxorubicin (AT) followed by CMF (arm B); 3) AT followed by CMF followed by surgery (arm C). The two co-primary objectives were to assess the effects on freedom from progression (FFP) of: 1) the addition of paclitaxel to post-operative chemotherapy (arm B versus arm A); and 2) primary versus adjuvant chemotherapy (arm B versus arm C). Results: At 10 years, in the adjuvant setting FFP remained statistically significant in favor of AT followed by CMF (arm B, HR 0.77, P=0.045). Distant FFP was similarly improved but overall survival was not (HR 0.82, P=0.24). There was no significant difference in FFP when chemotherapy was given after surgery compared with the same regimen given before surgery (arm B vs arm C, HR 0.79, P=0.07). In the primary chemotherapy arm, patients who achieved a pathological complete remission (pCR) had improved distant FFP (P < 0.001) compared to patients who did not achieve pCR. When given as primary systemic therapy, the paclitaxel-containing regimen allowed breast-sparing surgery in a significant percentage of patients, which did not translate in an increased risk of ipsilateral breast recurrence compared to the risk observed in patients in the adjuvant arms. Conclusions: Incorporating paclitaxel into anthracycline-based adjuvant therapy resulted in a significantly improved FFP and DFFP.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document