Neoadjuvant chemotherapy: Are we barking up the right tree?

Annals of Oncology

Volumn 21, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 675-679

  Debled, M ^a   Mauriac, L ^a  

^a INSTITUT BERGONIÉ   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; CAPECITABINE; CISPLATIN; CYCLOPHOSPHAMIDE; DOCETAXEL; DOXORUBICIN; EPIRUBICIN; FLUOROURACIL; METHOTREXATE; NAVELBINE; PACLITAXEL; PLATINUM COMPLEX; PREDNISONE; TAMOXIFEN; TAXANE DERIVATIVE; TRASTUZUMAB; VINBLASTINE; VINCRISTINE;

ADJUVANT THERAPY; ADVANCED CANCER; BREAST CANCER; BREAST CARCINOMA; BREAST SURGERY; CANCER ADJUVANT THERAPY; CANCER CLASSIFICATION; CANCER COMBINATION CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER RECURRENCE; CANCER RELAPSE; CANCER SURVIVAL; CLINICAL TRIAL; DISEASE FREE SURVIVAL; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG RESPONSE; DRUG SAFETY; EDITORIAL; HUMAN; MALIGNANT NEOPLASTIC DISEASE; METASTASIS; MICROMETASTASIS; MULTIPLE CYCLE TREATMENT; OVERALL SURVIVAL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGNOSIS; SURVIVAL RATE; SURVIVAL TIME;

EID: 77951953814     PISSN: 09237534     EISSN: 15698041     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdq062     Document Type: Editorial

References (38)

1. Frasci G, D'Aiuto G, Comella P et al. Southern Italy Cooperative Oncology Group (SICOG). Weekly cisplatin, epirubicin, and paclitaxel with granulocyte colonystimulating factor support vs triweekly epirubicin and paclitaxel in locally advanced breast cancer: Final analysis of a SICOG phase III study. Br J Cancer 2006; 95: 1005-1012.
2. Frasci G, D'Aiuto G, Comella P et al. Preoperative weekly cisplatin, epirubicin, and paclitaxel (PET) improves prognosis in locally advanced breast cancer patients: an update of the Southern Italy Cooperative Oncology Group (SICOG) randomised trial 9908. Ann Oncol 2010; 21: 707-716.
3. Feldman LD, Hortobagyi GN, Buzdar AU et al. Pathological assessment of response to induction chemotherapy in breast cancer. Cancer Res 1986; 46: 2578-2581.
4. Wolmark N, Wang J, Mamounas E et al. 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.
5. Pierga JY, Mouret E, Laurence V et al. Prognostic factors for survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in operable breast cancer: the role of clinical response. Eur J Cancer 2003; 39: 1089-1096.
6. Bear HD, Anderson S, Smith RE 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 2006; 24: 2019-2027.
7. Mazouni C, Peintinger F, Wan-Kau S 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 2007; 25: 2650-2655.
8. Jeruss JS, Mittendorf EA, Tucker SL et al. Combined use of clinical and pathologic staging variables to define outcomes for breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 246-252.
9. Rodenhuis S, Mandjes IA, Wesseling J et al. A simple system for grading the response of breast cancer to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Oncol 2010; 21(3): 481-487.
10. Symmans WF, Peintinger F, Hatzis C et al. Measurement of residual breast cancer burden to predict survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 4414-4422.
11. Jones RL, Salter J, A'Hern R et al. The prognostic significance of Ki67 before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2009; 116: 53-68.
12. Amat S, Penault-Llorca F, Cure H et al. Scarff-Bloom-Richardson (SBR) grading: a pleiotropic marker of chemosensitivity in invasive ductal breast carcinomas treated by neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Int J Oncol 2002; 20: 791-796.
13. Guarneri V, Piacentini F, Ficarra G et al. A prognostic model based on nodal status and Ki-67 predicts the risk of recurrence and death in breast cancer patients with residual disease after preoperative chemotherapy. Ann Oncol 2009; 20: 1193-1198.
14. Chollet P, Abrial C, Durando X et al. A new prognostic classification after primary chemotherapy for breast cancer: residual disease in breast and nodes (RDBN). Cancer J 2008; 14: 128-132.
15. Prentice RL. Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: definition and operational criteria. Stat Med 1989; 8: 431-440.
16. Buyse M, Molenberghs G, Burzykowski T et al. The validation of surrogate endpoints in meta-analyses of randomized experiments. Biostatistics 2000; 1: 49-67.
17. Guarneri V, Broglio K, Kau SW et al. Prognostic value of pathologic complete response after primary chemotherapy in relation to hormone receptor status and other factors. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24: 1037-1044.
18. Baker SG. A simple meta-analytic approach for using a binary surrogate endpoint to predict the effect of intervention on true endpoint. Biostatistics 2006; 7: 58-70.
19. Bonnefoi H. 'Small' randomised neo-adjuvant chemotherapy trials in breast cancer reporting on pathological response: more harm than good?. Ann Oncol 2005; 16: 1407-1410.
20. Hutcheon AW, Heys SD, Sarkar TK. the Aberdeen Breast Group. Neoadjuvant docetaxel in locally advanced breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2003; 79 (Suppl 1): S19-S24.
21. Evans TR, Yellowlees A, Foster E et al. Phase III randomized trial of doxorubicin and docetaxel versus doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide as primary medical therapy in women with breast cancer: an anglo-celtic cooperative oncology group study. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 2988-2995.
22. Untch M, Möbus V, Kuhn W et al. Intensive dose-dense compared with conventionally scheduled preoperative chemotherapy for high-risk primary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 2938-2945.
23. Buzdar AU, Singletary SE, Theriault RL et al. Prospective evaluation of paclitaxel versus combination chemotherapy with fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide as neoadjuvant therapy in patients with operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17: 3412-3417.
24. Baldini E, Gardin G, Giannessi PG et al. Accelerated versus standard cyclophosphamide, epirubicin and 5-fluorouracil or cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil: a randomized phase III trial in locally advanced breast cancer. Ann Oncol 2003; 14: 227-232.
25. Smith IE, A'Hern RP, Coombes GA et al. TOPIC Trial Group. A novel continuous infusional 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy regimen compared with conventional chemotherapy in the neo-adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer: 5 year results of the TOPIC trial. Ann Oncol 2004; 15: 751-758.
26. Chua S, Smith IE, A'Hern RP et al. TOPIC Trial Group. Neoadjuvant vinorelbine/epirubicin (VE) versus standard adriamycin/cyclophosphamide (AC) in operable breast cancer: analysis of response and tolerability in a randomised phase III trial (TOPIC 2). Ann Oncol 2005; 16: 1435-1441.
27. Gianni L, Eiermann W, Semiglazov V et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with trastuzumab followed by adjuvant trastuzumab versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone, in patients with HER2-positive locally advanced breast cancer (the NOAH trial): a randomised controlled superiority trial with a parallel HER2-negative cohort. Lancet 2010; 375: 377-384.
28. Reitsamer R, Peintinger F, Prokop E, Hitzl W. Pathological complete response rates comparing 3 versus 6 cycles of epidoxorubicin and docetaxel in the neoadjuvant setting of patients with stage II and III breast cancer. Anticancer Drugs 2005; 16: 867-870.
29. Steger GG, Galid A, Gnant M et al. ABCSG-14. Pathologic complete response with six compared with three cycles of neoadjuvant epirubicin plus docetaxel and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in operable breast cancer: results of ABCSG-14. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 2012-2018.
30. Han S, Kim J, Lee J et al. Comparison of 6 cycles versus 4 cycles of neoadjuvant epirubicin plus docetaxel chemotherapy in stages II and III breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 2009; 35: 583-587.
31. Wolff AC, Berry D, Carey LA et al. Research issues affecting preoperative systemic therapy for operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 806-813.
32. Gralow JR, Burstein HJ, Wood W et al. Preoperative therapy in invasive breast cancer: pathologic assessment and systemic therapy issues in operable disease. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 814-819.
33. Thomas E, Holmes FA, Smith TL et al. The use of alternate, non-cross-resistant adjuvant chemotherapy on the basis of pathologic response to a neoadjuvant doxorubicin-based regimen in women with operable breast cancer: long-term results from a prospective randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 2294-2302.
34. Smith IC, Heys SD, Hutcheon AW et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: significantly enhanced response with docetaxel. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20: 1456-1466.
35. von Minckwitz G, Kü mmel S, Vogel P et al. German Breast Group. Neoadjuvant vinorelbine-capecitabine versus docetaxel-doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide in early nonresponsive breast cancer: phase III randomized GeparTrio trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008; 100: 542-551.
36. von Minckwitz G, Kü mmel S, Vogel P et al. German Breast Group. Intensified neoadjuvant chemotherapy in early-responding breast cancer: phase III randomized GeparTrio study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008; 100: 552-562.
37. Snoj N, Bedard PL, de Azambuja E et al. Are we HER-ting for innovation in neoadjuvant breast cancer trial design?. Breast Cancer Res 2009; 11: 201.
38. Frasci G, D'Aiuto G, Comella P et al. Cisplatin-epirubicin-paclitaxel weekly administration with G-CSF support in advanced breast cancer. A Southern Italy Cooperative Oncology Group (SICOG) phase II study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2000; 62: 87-97.