INTRODUCTION: The objective was to evaluate a dose-dense schedule of docetaxel followed by doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) as neoadjuvant treatment for patients with locally advanced breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ninety-nine patients were included and received 100 mg/m(2) of docetaxel every two weeks for four cycles followed by 60 mg/m(2) of doxorubicin and 600 mg/m(2) of cyclophosphamide every two weeks for four cycles. Primary prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) was administered systematically to all patients. RESULTS: Efficacy and toxicity analyses were carried out on an intention-to-treat basis. After treatment, complete pathological response in the breast and lymph nodes was confirmed in 15 patients (15%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 8.4-22.9). Clinical response rate was 74% (95% CI: 65-82), of which 19% were complete responses. Breast-conserving surgery could be performed in 41% of patients. The dose-dense schedule was generally well tolerated. The most important grade 3/4 toxicities per patient were cutaneous toxicity (12.1%) and hepatic dysfunction (9.1%) during docetaxel administration, and neutropenia (28.1%) and leucopenia (8.3%) with AC. CONCLUSION: A dose-dense schedule of docetaxel followed by AC as neoadjuvant treatment is an effective and safe treatment for locally advanced breast cancer. Primary prophylaxis with G-CSF, and possibly the change in the sequence of drug administration, appears to play a major role in avoiding the excessive toxicity of dose-dense schedules.
INTRODUCTION: The objective was to evaluate a dose-dense schedule of docetaxel followed by doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) as neoadjuvant treatment for patients with locally advanced breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ninety-nine patients were included and received 100 mg/m(2) of docetaxel every two weeks for four cycles followed by 60 mg/m(2) of doxorubicin and 600 mg/m(2) of cyclophosphamide every two weeks for four cycles. Primary prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) was administered systematically to all patients. RESULTS: Efficacy and toxicity analyses were carried out on an intention-to-treat basis. After treatment, complete pathological response in the breast and lymph nodes was confirmed in 15 patients (15%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 8.4-22.9). Clinical response rate was 74% (95% CI: 65-82), of which 19% were complete responses. Breast-conserving surgery could be performed in 41% of patients. The dose-dense schedule was generally well tolerated. The most important grade 3/4 toxicities per patient were cutaneous toxicity (12.1%) and hepatic dysfunction (9.1%) during docetaxel administration, and neutropenia (28.1%) and leucopenia (8.3%) with AC. CONCLUSION: A dose-dense schedule of docetaxel followed by AC as neoadjuvant treatment is an effective and safe treatment for locally advanced breast cancer. Primary prophylaxis with G-CSF, and possibly the change in the sequence of drug administration, appears to play a major role in avoiding the excessive toxicity of dose-dense schedules.
Authors: G von Minckwitz; S D Costa; W Eiermann; J U Blohmer; A H Tulusan; C Jackisch; M Kaufmann Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1999-07 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: G Bonadonna; P Valagussa; C Brambilla; L Ferrari; A Moliterni; M Terenziani; M Zambetti Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1998-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Harry D Bear; Stewart Anderson; Roy E Smith; Charles E Geyer; Eleftherios P Mamounas; Bernard Fisher; Ann M Brown; Andre Robidoux; Richard Margolese; Morton S Kahlenberg; Soonmyung Paik; Atilla Soran; D Lawrence Wickerham; Norman Wolmark Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-04-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: J A van der Hage; C J van de Velde; J P Julien; M Tubiana-Hulin; C Vandervelden; L Duchateau Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-11-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ian C Smith; Steven D Heys; Andrew W Hutcheon; Iain D Miller; Simon Payne; Fiona J Gilbert; Antoinne K Ah-See; Oleg Eremin; Leslie G Walker; Tarun K Sarkar; S Peter Eggleton; Keith N Ogston Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-03-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Silvia C Formenti; Matthew Volm; Kristin A Skinner; Darcy Spicer; Deidre Cohen; Edith Perez; Anna C Bettini; Susan Groshen; Conway Gee; Barbara Florentine; Michael Press; Peter Danenberg; Franco Muggia Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-03-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: B Fisher; J Bryant; N Wolmark; E Mamounas; A Brown; E R Fisher; D L Wickerham; M Begovic; A DeCillis; A Robidoux; R G Margolese; A B Cruz; J L Hoehn; A W Lees; N V Dimitrov; H D Bear Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1998-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ming J Poi; Michael Berger; Maryam Lustberg; Rachel Layman; Charles L Shapiro; Bhuvaneswari Ramaswamy; Ewa Mrozek; Erin Olson; Robert Wesolowski Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2013-05-19 Impact factor: 3.603