BACKGROUND: The role of adjuvant chemotherapy in postmenopausal patients with lymph node-negative breast cancer is controversial. After demonstrating the efficacy of chemotherapy combined with tamoxifen for postmenopausal patients with lymph node-positive disease, the International Breast Cancer Study Group launched a randomized trial (Trial IX) to evaluate the role of adjuvant chemotherapy preceding treatment with tamoxifen for patients with lymph node-negative disease. METHODS: After stratification by estrogen receptor (ER) status, patients were randomly assigned to receive three 28-day courses of "classical" adjuvant CMF chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide at 100 mg/m(2) on days 1-14, orally; methotrexate at 40 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8, intravenously; and 5-fluorouracil at 600 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8, intravenously) followed by tamoxifen (20 mg/day, orally for 57 months) (CMF-->tamoxifen) or to receive tamoxifen alone (20 mg/day, orally for 60 months). We enrolled 1669 eligible patients, 382 (23%) with ER-negative tumors, 1217 (73%) with ER-positive tumors, and 70 (4%) with unknown ER status. The median follow-up was 71 months. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: The added benefit of CMF followed by tamoxifen over tamoxifen alone was statistically significantly dependent on ER status (tests for interaction: P =.01 for disease-free survival [DFS] and P =.07 for overall survival [OS]). For patients with ER-negative tumors, the addition of CMF statistically significantly improved DFS (5-year DFS = 84% for CMF-->tamoxifen versus 69% for tamoxifen alone; difference = 15%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 6% to 24%; risk ratio [RR] = 0.52; 95% CI = 0.34 to 0.79; P =.003) and OS (5-year OS = 89% for CMF-->tamoxifen versus 81% for tamoxifen alone; difference = 8%; 95% CI = 0% to 16%; RR = 0.51; 95% CI = 0.30 to 0.87; P =.01). By contrast, for patients with ER-positive tumors, addition of CMF provided no benefit in terms of DFS (5-year DFS = 84% for CMF-->tamoxifen versus 85% for tamoxifen alone; difference = -1; 95% CI = -6% to 4%; RR = 0.99; 95% CI = 0.75 to 1.30; P =.92) or OS (5-year OS = 95% for CMF-->tamoxifen versus 93% for tamoxifen alone; difference = 2%; 95% CI = -1% to 5%; RR = 0.95; 95% CI = 0.64 to 1.40; P =.80). CONCLUSIONS:Postmenopausal patients with lymph node-negative breast cancer benefited substantially from adjuvant chemotherapy if their cancer was ER-negative (i.e., endocrine-nonresponsive). In contrast, if their cancer was ER-positive (i.e., endocrine-responsive), they obtained no benefit from the combination treatment compared with tamoxifen alone.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The role of adjuvant chemotherapy in postmenopausal patients with lymph node-negative breast cancer is controversial. After demonstrating the efficacy of chemotherapy combined with tamoxifen for postmenopausal patients with lymph node-positive disease, the International Breast Cancer Study Group launched a randomized trial (Trial IX) to evaluate the role of adjuvant chemotherapy preceding treatment with tamoxifen for patients with lymph node-negative disease. METHODS: After stratification by estrogen receptor (ER) status, patients were randomly assigned to receive three 28-day courses of "classical" adjuvant CMF chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide at 100 mg/m(2) on days 1-14, orally; methotrexate at 40 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8, intravenously; and 5-fluorouracil at 600 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8, intravenously) followed by tamoxifen (20 mg/day, orally for 57 months) (CMF-->tamoxifen) or to receive tamoxifen alone (20 mg/day, orally for 60 months). We enrolled 1669 eligible patients, 382 (23%) with ER-negative tumors, 1217 (73%) with ER-positive tumors, and 70 (4%) with unknown ER status. The median follow-up was 71 months. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: The added benefit of CMF followed by tamoxifen over tamoxifen alone was statistically significantly dependent on ER status (tests for interaction: P =.01 for disease-free survival [DFS] and P =.07 for overall survival [OS]). For patients with ER-negative tumors, the addition of CMF statistically significantly improved DFS (5-year DFS = 84% for CMF-->tamoxifen versus 69% for tamoxifen alone; difference = 15%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 6% to 24%; risk ratio [RR] = 0.52; 95% CI = 0.34 to 0.79; P =.003) and OS (5-year OS = 89% for CMF-->tamoxifen versus 81% for tamoxifen alone; difference = 8%; 95% CI = 0% to 16%; RR = 0.51; 95% CI = 0.30 to 0.87; P =.01). By contrast, for patients with ER-positive tumors, addition of CMF provided no benefit in terms of DFS (5-year DFS = 84% for CMF-->tamoxifen versus 85% for tamoxifen alone; difference = -1; 95% CI = -6% to 4%; RR = 0.99; 95% CI = 0.75 to 1.30; P =.92) or OS (5-year OS = 95% for CMF-->tamoxifen versus 93% for tamoxifen alone; difference = 2%; 95% CI = -1% to 5%; RR = 0.95; 95% CI = 0.64 to 1.40; P =.80). CONCLUSIONS: Postmenopausal patients with lymph node-negative breast cancer benefited substantially from adjuvant chemotherapy if their cancer was ER-negative (i.e., endocrine-nonresponsive). In contrast, if their cancer was ER-positive (i.e., endocrine-responsive), they obtained no benefit from the combination treatment compared with tamoxifen alone.
Authors: Marco Colleoni; Bernard F Cole; Giuseppe Viale; Meredith M Regan; Karen N Price; Eugenio Maiorano; Mauro G Mastropasqua; Diana Crivellari; Richard D Gelber; Aron Goldhirsch; Alan S Coates; Barry A Gusterson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-05-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Per Karlsson; Bernard F Cole; Marco Colleoni; Mario Roncadin; Boon H Chua; Elizabeth Murray; Karen N Price; Monica Castiglione-Gertsch; Aron Goldhirsch; Günther Gruber Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-08-21 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: S Aebi; Z Sun; D Braun; K N Price; M Castiglione-Gertsch; M Rabaglio; R D Gelber; D Crivellari; J Lindtner; R Snyder; P Karlsson; E Simoncini; B A Gusterson; G Viale; M M Regan; A S Coates; A Goldhirsch Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2011-01-31 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Melinda E Sanders; Eduardo C Dias; Baogang J Xu; James A Mobley; Dean Billheimer; Heinrich Roder; Julia Grigorieva; Mitchell Dowsett; Carlos L Arteaga; Richard M Caprioli Journal: J Proteome Res Date: 2008-04-04 Impact factor: 4.466
Authors: Kathy S Albain; William E Barlow; Peter M Ravdin; William B Farrar; Gary V Burton; Steven J Ketchel; Charles D Cobau; Ellis G Levine; James N Ingle; Kathleen I Pritchard; Allen S Lichter; Daniel J Schneider; Martin D Abeloff; I Craig Henderson; Hyman B Muss; Stephanie J Green; Danika Lew; Robert B Livingston; Silvana Martino; C Kent Osborne Journal: Lancet Date: 2009-12-10 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Kathy S Albain; William E Barlow; Steven Shak; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Robert B Livingston; I-Tien Yeh; Peter Ravdin; Roberto Bugarini; Frederick L Baehner; Nancy E Davidson; George W Sledge; Eric P Winer; Clifford Hudis; James N Ingle; Edith A Perez; Kathleen I Pritchard; Lois Shepherd; Julie R Gralow; Carl Yoshizawa; D Craig Allred; C Kent Osborne; Daniel F Hayes Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2009-12-10 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Michael J Hassett; Melissa E Hughes; Joyce C Niland; Stephen B Edge; Richard L Theriault; Yu-Ning Wong; John Wilson; W Bradford Carter; Douglas W Blayney; Jane C Weeks Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-10-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Akiko Chiba; Tanya L Hoskin; Courtney N Heins; Kelly K Hunt; Elizabeth B Habermann; Judy C Boughey Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2016-09-23 Impact factor: 5.344