| Literature DB >> 25995984 |
Jennifer Eremin1, Ged Cowley2, Leslie G Walker3, Elisabeth Murray4, Monika Stovickova5, Oleg Eremin6.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine whether capecitabine (X), combined with docetaxel (T) following doxorubicin (A) and cyclophosphamide (C), enhanced the pathological complete response (pCR) in the breast and axillary lymph nodes (ALNs) of women with large or locally advanced breast cancers (LLABCs) improving outcome, and the effect on quality of life (QoL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: 117 women were enrolled, 112 randomised to 2 cycles of AC (60 mg/m(2), 600 mg/m(2)) given 3 weekly. Tumour responses were assessed by magnetic resonance mammography. Responders (n = 77) received 2 further cycles of AC and were randomised to 4 cycles of T (100 mg/m(2)) (Group A) or T (75 mg/m(2)) and X (2000 mg/m(2)/day), day one to 14 of each 3 weekly cycle (Group B). Non-responders (n = 35) were randomised to 6 cycles of T (Group C) or T + X (Group D). QoL questionnaires were completed at each chemotherapy visit. Pathological responses were evaluated using established criteria.Entities:
Keywords: Breast cancer; Neoadjuvant chemotherapy; Response; Survival
Year: 2015 PMID: 25995984 PMCID: PMC4429427 DOI: 10.1186/2193-1801-4-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Springerplus ISSN: 2193-1801
Patient and tumour characteristics of randomised patients
| GROUPS A + C (n = 57) | STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE* | GROUPS B + D (n = 55) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| p-value | |||
| Age in years, mean (range) | 53.9 (33 – 69) | - | - | 53.0 (35 – 69) |
| Menopausal status, n (%) | ||||
| PRE-PERI | 24 (42.1) | 0.572 | 0.449 | 29 (52.7) |
| POST | 33 (57.9) | 26 (47.3) | ||
| TNM Classification, n (%) | ||||
| T0-T1 | 2 (3.5) | 1 (1.8) | ||
| T2 | 43 (75.4) | 46 (83.6) | ||
| T3 | 5 (8.8) | 4.881 | 0.300 | 5 (9.1) |
| T4 | 7 (12.3) | 3 (5.5) | ||
| N0 | 32 (56.1) | 29 (52.7) | ||
| N1-2 | 25 (43.9) | 26 (47.3) | ||
| Tumour size in cm (caliper), mean (range) | 4.3 (2 – 14) | - | - | 4.2 (1.9 – 14) |
| Pre NAC nodal involvement, confirmed by biopsy, n (%) | 22 (39.3) | - | - | 23 (42.6) |
| Tumour type, n (%) | ||||
| Ductal invasive | 49 (86.0) | 0.410 | 0.815 | 47 (85.5) |
| Lobular invasive (and others) | 8 (14.0) | 8 (14.5) | ||
| Tumour grade, n (%) | ||||
| Grades 1 and 2 | 38 (66.7) | 2.495 | 0.287 | 28 (51.0) |
| Grade 3 | 19 (33.3) | 27 (49.0) | ||
| ER status, n (%)a | ||||
| Positive (Allred >3) | 45 (78.9) | 1.732 | 0.421 | 37 (67.3) |
| Negative (Allred < 3) | 12 (21.1) | 12 (32.7) | ||
| HER2 status, n (%)b | ||||
| Positive (FISH) | 11 (19.3) | 0.212 | 0.450 | 14 (25.9) |
| Negative | 46 (80.7) | 41 (74.1) | ||
aER : Oestrogen receptor. bHER2: Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2. Allred : Scoring system for measuring expression of oestrogen receptors in tissue sections. FISH : Fluorescence in-situ hybridisation.
*Various patient and tumour characteristics were not significantly different between Groups (A + C) and (B + D) (p>0.05, Pearson Chi-Square Test).
Pathological response in breast [n (%)] following NAC
| PATHOLOGICAL RESPONSE GRADE [n(%)] b * | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GROUPS (n = 107) a | 5(PCR) | 4(MRD) | 3(PR) | 2/1(PoR/NR) |
| A | 11 (30.6) | 10 (27.8) | 10 (27.8) | 5 (13.9) |
| (n = 36) | ||||
| B | 15 (40.5) | 10 (27) | 9 (24.3) | 3 (8.1) |
| (n = 37) | ||||
| C | 1 (5.6) | 1 (5.6) | 6 (27.8) | 10 (16.1) |
| (n = 18) | ||||
| D | 2 (12.5) | 2 (12.5) | 5 (31.3) | 7 (43.8) |
| (n = 16) | ||||
| (A + C) | 12 (22.2) | 11 (20.4) | 15 (27.8) | 16 (29.6) |
| (n = 54) | ||||
| (B + D) | 17 (32.1) | 12 (22.6) | 14 (26.4) | 10 (18.8) |
| (n = 53) | ||||
aTwo patients received preoperative radiotherapy and one had no demonstrable cancer in the breast (involved ALN on presentation).
bPCR : complete response, no residual invasive tumour cells in specimen, DCIS accepted (grade 5); MRD : minimal residual disease, >90% loss of tumour cells, (grade 4); PR : partial response, moderate reduction in tumour cell burden, between 30%-90% reduction in tumour cells (grade 3); PoR : poor response, minimal loss (<30%) of tumour cells, (grade 2); NR : no response/no change in overall cellularity, (grade 1).
*Pathological responses were not significantly different between the Groups (p>0.05); A + C versus (v) B + D: χ 2 = 3.717, p = 0.446 (Pearson Chi-Square Test).
Pathological response in excised axillary nodes following NAC
| GROUPS (n = 110) a | PATHOLOGICAL RESPONSE GRADE [n (%)] b * | PRE NAC NORMAL NODES (n = 67) | PRE NAC TUMOUR INVOLVED ALNs (n = 45) | POST NAC PCR in ALNs (n = 43) a | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 (PCR) | 2 (PR) | 1(PoR) | ||||
| Aa | 6 (16.7%) | 4 (11.1%) | 4 (11.1%) | 21 (55.3%) | 17 (44.7%) | 6 (35.3%) |
| n = 37 | ||||||
| Ba | 8 (21.1%) | 4 (10.5%) | 3 (7.9%) | 23 (60.5%) | 15 (39.5%) | 8 (53.3%) |
| n = 38 | ||||||
| C | 0 (0%) | 2 (11.1%) | 2 (11.1%) | 14 (77.8%) | 5 (26.3%) | 0 (0%) |
| n = 19 | ||||||
| D | 4 (25.0%) | 2 (12.5%) | 1 (6.25%) | 9 (56.3%) | 8 (50%) | 4 (50%) |
| n = 16 | ||||||
| A + C | 6 (11.1%) | 6 (11.1%) | 6 (11.1%) | 35 (61.4%) | 22 (38.6%) | 6 (30%) (n = 20) |
| n = 56 | ||||||
| B + D | 12 (22.2%) | 6 (11.1%) | 4 (7.4%) | 32 (58.2%) | 23 (41.8%) | 12 (52.2%) (n = 23) |
| n = 54 | ||||||
aTwo patients had pre-operative radiotherapy and were excluded from the post NAC analysis, one in Group A and one in Group B.
bPCR : complete response, all metastatic disease replaced by fibrosis (grade 3); PR : partial response in metastatic disease and evidence of fibrotic replacement of malignant cells (grade 2); PoR : poor response, metastasis with no evidence of fibrosis (grade 1); normal nodes: no evidence of metastatic disease or fibrosis in lymph nodes.
*Pathological responses were not significantly different between the Groups (p>0.05); A + C v B + D (all ALNs): χ = 2.743, p = 0.098; A + C v B + D (pre NAC +ve ALNs): χ 2 = 1.433, p = 0.231 (Pearson Chi-Square Test).
Grade 3 and 4 toxicities [n (%)] associated with NAC, evaluated at cycle 8 a
| GROUPS (n = 92) | TOXICITY | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NAILS* | HAND-FOOT* | PARESTHESIA | MYALGIA* | FATIGUE | |
| A | 6(20.0%) | 1 (3.3%) | 2 (6.6%) | 7 (23.3%) | 16 (53.3%) |
| (n = 30) | |||||
| B | 16 (47.1%) | 7 (23.3%) | 1 (2.9%) | 1 (2.9%) | 21 (61.7%) |
| (n = 34) | |||||
| C | 1 (6.3%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (12.5%) | 1 (6.3%) | 9 (56.3%) |
| (n = 16) | |||||
| D | 8 (66.7%) | 1 (8.3%) | 2 (16.6%) | 0 (0%) | 9 (75.0%) |
| (n = 12) | |||||
| (A + C) | 7 (15.2%) | 1 (2.2%) | 4 (8.7%) | 8 (17.4%) | 25 (54.3%) |
| (n = 46) | |||||
| (B + D) | 24 (52.2%) | 8 (17.4%) | 3 (6.5%) | 1 (2.2%) | 30 (65.2%) |
| (n = 46) | |||||
aSerious Adverse Events (SAEs) : n = 13; Suspected Unexpected Serious Adverse Reactions (SUSARs) : n = 1; Deaths : n = 0. NS : Not Significant.
*Statistically significant (Pearson Chi-Square Test). *Nail changes : A v B (χ 2 = 5.173, p = 0.023); C v D (χ 2 = 11.476, p = 0.007); A + C v B + D (χ 2 = 14.060, p = 0.0002). *Hand-foot syndrome : A v B (χ 2 = 4.338, p = 0.037); C v D (NS); A + C v B + D (χ 2 = 6.035, p = 0.014). Paresthesia : A v B (NS); C v D(NS); A + C v C + D (NS). *Myalgia : A v B (χ 2 = 9.572, p = 0.023); A + C v B + D (χ 2 = 6.035, p = 0.014). Fatigue : A v B (NS); C v D (NS); A + C v B + D (NS).
Significant (2-tailed) correlations between various parameters in women with LLABCs undergoing NAC
| PSYCHOLOGICAL PARAMETERS a | STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE* | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| r xy | p-value | ||
|
| HADS (ANXIETY) | 0.296 | 0.001 |
| HADS (DEPRESSION) | 0.291 | 0.002 | |
| MRS (HAPPINESS) | -0.185 | 0.049 | |
| MRS (CLEAR HEADEDNESS) | -0.249 | 0.008 | |
| MRS (RELAXATION) | -0.236 | 0.011 | |
|
| HADS (DEPRESSION) | 0.218 | 0.020 |
| MRS (HAPPINESS) | -0.217 | 0.021 | |
| MRS (CLEAR HEADEDNESS) | -0.217 | 0.021 | |
|
| MRS (CLEAR HEADEDNESS) | 0.263 | 0.010 |
| MRS (CONFIDENCE) | 0.266 | 0.009 | |
aHADS : Hospital anxiety and depression scales; MRS : Mood rating scales.
*rxy : Pearson Correlation (Univariate Analysis of Variance).
Figure 1Kaplan-Meier Survival curves for (A) DFS ( = 5.802, df1, p = 0.016) and (B) OS ( = 3.639, df1, p = 0.056) at a median follow-up period of 4 years and 3 months (Log Rank [Mantel-Cox]).