Randomized trial of 3 different regimens of combination chemotherapy in patients receiving simultaneously a hormonal treatment for advanced breast cancer. Comparison of four-combination chemotherapy programs in metastatic breast cancer: comparison of multiple drug therapy with cytoxan, 5-FU and prednisone versus cytoxan and adriamycin, versus cytoxan, 5-FU and adriamycin, versus cytoxan, 5-FU and prednisone alternating with cytoxan and adriamycin. Safety and efficacy of using a single agent or a phase II agent before instituting standard combination chemotherapy in previously untreated metastatic breast cancer patients: report of a randomized study--Cancer and Leukemia Group B 8642. Evaluation of single-drug versus multiple-drug chemotherapy in the treatment of advanced breast cancer. Combination chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer: two regimens containing adriamycin. Response and survival in advanced breast cancer after two non-cross-resistant combinations. Combination chemotherapy for metastatic breast carcinoma. Prospective comparison of multiple drug therapy with L-phenylalanine mustard. Combination chemotherapy compared to tamoxifen as initial therapy for stage IV breast cancer in elderly women. Is first-line single-agent mitoxantrone in the treatment of high-risk metastatic breast cancer patients as effective as combination chemotherapy? No difference in survival but higher quality of life were found in a multicenter randomized trial. Sequential adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy in endometrial cancer--results from two randomised studies. Randomized adjuvant trial of tamoxifen and goserelin versus cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil: evidence for the superiority of treatment with endocrine blockade in premenopausal patients with hormone-responsive breast cancer--Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group Trial 5. Chemotherapy of advanced breast cancer: a controlled randomized trial of cyclophosphamide versus a four-drug combination. Randomized clinical trial of CFP versus CMFP in women with metastatic breast cancer. A randomized study of intensive versus moderate chemotherapy programs in metastatic breast cancer. A phase III randomized study on the sequencing of radiotherapy and chemotherapy in the conservative management of early-stage breast cancer. Neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy in premenopausal patients with tumours considered too large for breast conserving surgery: preliminary results of a randomised trial: S6. Prospective randomized study of aminoglutethimide (AG) versus medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) versus AG+MPA in generalized breast cancer. Comparison of rapidly cycled tandem high-dose chemotherapy plus peripheral-blood stem-cell support versus dose-dense conventional chemotherapy for adjuvant treatment of high-risk breast cancer: results of a multicentre phase III trial. Improving the quality of life during chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer. A comparison of intermittent and continuous treatment strategies. Survival of premenopausal women with metastatic breast cancer. Long-term follow-up of Eastern Cooperative Group and Cancer and Leukemia Group B studies. Differential response to chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer in relation to estrogen receptor level. Results of a prospective randomized study. Long-term survival of patients treated with combination chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. An intergroup phase III comparison of standard radiation therapy and two schedules of concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with unresectable squamous cell head and neck cancer. Sequencing of chemotherapy and radiation therapy in early-stage breast cancer: updated results of a prospective randomized trial. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in operable breast cancer. Survival results from a phase III study of simultaneous versus 1-hour sequential methotrexate-5-fluorouracil chemotherapy in head and neck cancer. Combination chemotherapy with cmf (cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, 5-Fluorouracil) versus cnf (mitoxantrone, 5-Fluorouracil, cyclophosphamide) in advanced breast-cancer - a multicenter randomized study. Hormonal treatment for metastatic breast cancer. An Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Phase III trial comparing aminoglutethimide to tamoxifen.
We report the results of a randomized trial carried out by the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK) and in which 230 patients with advanced breast cancer receiving concurrently a hormonal treatment (oophorectomy for pre- and tamoxifen for postmenopausal women) were randomly allocated to three different regimens of combination chemotherapy. The therapeutic results registered with the two more intensive combinations (LMP/FVP and LMFP/ADM) were similar with regard to response rates, time to progression and survival. The patients receiving the low-dose chemotherapy lmfp showed a statistically significant lower response rate (32%, P less than 0.001) and a shorter survival (P = 0.03) than the results observed in patients treated with the two other regimens. This difference was particularly pronounced, at least regarding survival, in the following subgroups: postmenopausal women, patients with a poor performance status, dominant visceral lesions, two sites of disease and a disease-free interval longer than 12 months. Patients with bony metastases as dominant lesion fared similarly with all three regimens of chemotherapy. This latter subset of advanced breast cancer patients should probably be spared too intensive cytotoxic treatment. This is, to our knowledge, the first report of a randomized trial showing an evident correlation between response rate and survival in various subgroups of patients with advanced breast cancer treated with different chemotherapeutic regimens. In 126 postmenopausal women with metastatic breast cancer, four chemotherapeutic combination programs were tested. Patients were stratified and randomized to one of the four programs: (1) fluorouracil, cytoxan and prednisone (CFP): (2) fluorouracil, cytoxan and Adriamycin (CAF); (3) cytoxan and Adriamycin (CA); or (4) alternating combinations of CFP-CA. Objective response rates were 17% for 18 patients on CFP, 25% for 40 patients on CAF, 42% for 41 patients on CA and 63% for 19 patients on CFP-CA. CFP-CA provided a significantly higher response rate than either CFP or CAF. The response rate of CA was intermediate. The duration of remission and survival were similar for all four groups. When progression or relapse following remission was demonstrated, patients were rerandomized to either adrenalectomy or tamoxifen. There were no responders either in the 15 patients undergoing adrenalectomy or the 11 patients receiving tamoxifen. In a crossover study, nine adrenalectomized patients received tamoxifen and four tamoxifen-treated patients underwent adrenalectomy. None responded. It appears that response rates to hormonal modalities are reduced in patients previously treated by combination chemotherapy. We undertook a prospective, randomized phase III trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of using a phase II agent before initiating therapy with standard combination chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer patients.
                A total of 365 women with measurable metastatic breast cancer, previously untreated with chemotherapy for their metastatic disease, were randomized to receive either immediate chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and fluorouracil (CAF) or up to four cycles of one of five sequential cohorts of single-agent drugs: trimetrexate, melphalan, amonafide, carboplatin, or elsamitrucin, followed by CAF.
                The toxicity of each single agent followed by CAF was comparable to that of CAF alone. The cumulative response rates for the single agent followed by CAF were not statistically different from those of CAF alone (44% v 52%; P = .24). However, in the multivariate analysis, patients with visceral disease had a trend toward lower response rates on the phase II agent plus CAF arm (P = .078). Although survival and response duration also were not statistically significantly different between the two study arms (P = .074 and P = .069, respectively), there was a suggestion of benefit for the CAF-only arm.
                The brief use of a phase II agent, regardless of its efficacy, followed by CAF resulted in response rates, toxicities, durations of response, and survival statistically equivalent to those seen with the use of CAF alone. These findings support the use of a new paradigm for the evaluation of phase II agents in the treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer. Fifty-one postmenopausal patients with advanced breast cancer were randomized to receive either cyclophosphamide given continuously or cyclophosphamide given continuously with methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil, vincristine, and prednisone given intermittently. The results with the multiple-drug therapy were significantly better than with the single-drug therapy, both with regard to percentage (63% versus 25%) and median duration (400 versus 210 days) of objective response. Toxicity was moderately increased with the combination as compared to the single-drug treatment. Forty-eight women with advanced metastatic carcinoma of the breast were treated with one of two combination chemotherapy regimens: 1) adriamycin and cyclophosphamide or 2) adriamycin, cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil. The response rate in the two-drug treatment group was 50% and in the four-drug treatment group, 55%. The median duration of response was ten months in both treatment groups. Dramatic responses were seen in patients with visceral metastases. Patients who responded to chemotherapy had a significantly longer survival than nonresponders (p less than 0.01). The long interval between adriamycin doses (six weeks) in the four drug regimen did not adversely effect the response rate--an important finding in view of the dose-related cardiac toxicity of this agent. A prospective study with two cytotoxic combinations (cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF), and adriamycin plus vincristine (AV)) was carried out in 110 patients with advanced breast cancer. There was no significant difference between the treatment groups in the response rate after primary treatment, the median duration of response, and the median survival. In both groups responders survived for longer than non-responders. Secondary treatment after crossover for progression or relapse resulted in response rates of 35% for AV and 20% for CMF. Toxicity was mainly represented by reversible haemosuppression. These results are comparable with those obtained with other multiple-drug regimens, and combination chemotherapy alone seems to have reached a plateau in its capacity to control disseminated breast cancer. A prospective randomized clinical trial was undertaken in 184 patients with metastatic breast carcinoma to compare single drug chemotherapy with L-phenylalanine mustard (L-PAM) and intermittent combination chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and 5-fluourouracil (CMF). All patients had not been previously treated with cytotoxic drugs and all had objectively measurable visceral of soft tissue disease. Of the 93 patients who received CMF, 49 (53%) achieved a complete (14 patients) or partial (35 patients) regression of measurable tumor, for a median duration of 25 weeks. Eighteen of the 91 patients (20%) treated with L-PAM responded, for a median duration of 13 weeks. The toxicity was primarily hematologic, and greater in the CMF group, which also received more cycles of therapy because of the higher rate and duration of response. The overall survival of CMF-treated patients was superior to that of the single drug group. The differences were even greater when the patients were subclassified according to the presence of liver involvement or nonambulatory performance status. The superior antitumor effect of CMF over L-PAM suggests that it may be a more effective drug regimen to be used as an adjuvant to primary therapy. In a randomized crossover study, 181 patients over the age of 65 with recurrent breast cancer received either tamoxifen or cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF). After progression on tamoxifen, a hormone withdrawal period was required. Because of altered pharmacokinetics with aging, creatinine clearance was used in calculating the dose of CMF. Response rates were 45% on tamoxifen and 38% on CMF, with median durations of 10.4 and 7.9 months, respectively. Survival rates tended to favor tamoxifen as the initial treatment even in estrogen-receptor-negative patients. Additional disease control with hormone withdrawal occurred in 23% of patients, and this benefit was highly correlated with prior hormone response. We conclude that initiation of hormone therapy rather than CMF chemotherapy is justified in almost all situations in elderly patients, and combination chemotherapy, is safe and useful after hormone failure if modified on the basis of renal dysfunction. To determine whether patients with high-risk metastatic breast cancer draw benefit from combination chemotherapy as first-line treatment.
                A total of 260 women with measurable metastatic breast cancer fulfilling high-risk criteria, previously untreated with chemotherapy for their metastatic disease, were randomized to receive either mitoxantrone 12 mg/m(2) or the combination of fluorouracil 500 mg/m(2), epirubicin 50 mg/m(2) and cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m(2) (FEC) every 3 weeks. Treatment was continued until complete remission plus two cycles, or until disease progression. In the case of partial remission or stable disease, treatment was stopped after 12 cycles. Second-line treatment was vindesine, mitomycin and prednisolone. Gain from treatment was estimated using a modified Brunner's score composed of time to progression, patients' rating of the treatment benefit, alopecia, vomiting and performance status.
                After recruitment from 1992 to 1997 and observation from 1997 to 1999, the final evaluation showed that single-agent treatment with mitoxantrone does not differ significantly from combination treatment with FEC in terms of response, objective remission rate, remission duration, time to response, time to best response, time to progression or overall survival. There was, however, a significant difference in gain from treatment using a modified Brunner's score favoring the single-agent treatment arm. There was no evidence that any subgroup would fare better with combination treatment.
                No significant difference was detected between the treatment with mitoxantrone as a single agent and the combination of low-dose FEC in terms of response or survival; therefore, the imperative of the necessity of first-line combination chemotherapy for patients with high-risk metastatic breast cancer may be questioned. Since toxicity and quality of life score favored the single-agent mitoxantrone treatment arm, this treatment may be offered to patients preferring quality of life to a potential small prolongation of survival. Endometrial cancer patients with high grade tumours, deep myometrial invasion or advanced stage disease have a poor prognosis. Randomised studies have demonstrated the prevention of loco-regional relapses with radiotherapy (RT) with no effect on overall survival (OS). The possible additive effect of chemotherapy (CT) remains unclear. Two randomised clinical trials (NSGO-EC-9501/EORTC-55991 and MaNGO ILIADE-III) were undertaken to clarify if sequential combination of chemotherapy and radiotherapy improves progression-free survival (PFS) in high-risk endometrial cancer. The two studies were pooled.
                Patients (n=540; 534 evaluable) with operated endometrial cancer International Federation of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (FIGO) stage I-III with no residual tumour and prognostic factors implying high-risk were randomly allocated to adjuvant radiotherapy with or without sequential chemotherapy.
                In the NSGO/EORTC study, the combined modality treatment was associated with 36% reduction in the risk for relapse or death (hazard ratio (HR) 0.64, 95%confidence interval (CI) 0.41-0.99; P=0.04); two-sided tests were used. The result from the Gynaecologic Oncology group at the Mario Negri Institute (MaNGO)-study pointed in the same direction (HR 0.61), but was not significant. In the combined analysis, the estimate of risk for relapse or death was similar but with narrower confidence limits (HR 0.63, CI 0.44-0.89; P=0.009). Neither study showed significant differences in the overall survival. In the combined analysis, overall survival approached statistical significance (HR 0.69, CI 0.46-1.03; P=0.07) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) was significant (HR 0.55, CI 0.35-0.88; P=0.01).
                Addition of adjuvant chemotherapy to radiation improves progression-free survival in operated endometrial cancer patients with no residual tumour and a high-risk profile. A remaining question for future studies is if addition of radiotherapy to chemotherapy improves the results.
                Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Effective adjuvant treatment modalities in premenopausal breast cancer patients today include chemotherapy, ovariectomy, and tamoxifen administration. The purpose of Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group Trial 5 was to compare the efficacy of a combination endocrine treatment with standard chemotherapy.
                Assessable trial subjects (N = 1,034) presenting with hormone-responsive disease were randomized to receive either 3 years of goserelin plus 5 years of tamoxifen or six cycles of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF). Stratification criteria included tumor stage and grade, number of involved nodes, type of surgery, and steroid hormone receptor content. Relapse-free survival (RFS) was defined as time from randomization to first relapse, local recurrence, or contralateral incidence, and overall survival (OS) as time to date of death.
                With a 60-month median follow-up, 17.2% of patients in the endocrine group and 20.8% undergoing chemotherapy developed relapses. Local recurrences emerged in 4.7% and 8.0%, respectively. RFS and local recurrence-free survival differed significantly in favor of endocrine therapy (P =.037 and P =.015), with a similar trend observed in OS (P =.195).
                Overall, our data suggest that the goserelin-tamoxifen combination is significantly more effective than CMF in the adjuvant treatment of premenopausal patients with stage I and II breast cancer. Ninety-nine patients with advanced breast cancer were randomized to receive either cyclophosphamide continuously or a combination of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil and vinblastine given intermittently. The number and duration of objective responses were greater in patients receiving the combination but the differences between the two treatments did not achieve formal significance. The combination was logistically easier to manage and produced less toxicity. A randomized trial was performed to determine relative efficacy and toxicity of two first-line combination chemotherapy regimens in women with metastatic breast cancer: CFP (cyclophosphamide, 5-fluorouracil, prednisone) and CMFP (cyclophosphamide, 5-fluorouracil, methotrexate, prednisone). Both regimens have reported efficacy in this setting but differ in dosages and scheduling of the agents they have in common. Three hundred thirty-six women with no prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease were eligible and evaluable, and 309 had either measurable or evaluable disease and were assessable for objective response. Responses were seen in 65 of 153 (42%) on CFP and 83 of 156 (53%) on CMFP (two-sided P = 0.06). Median durations of response were 7.1 months for CFP and 8.5 months for CMFP (log-rank, two-sided P = 0.67). Considering all 336 patients, the median times to disease progression were 4.7 months for CFP and 6.2 months for CMFP (log-rank P = 0.31) and median survivals were 15.2 and 14.9 months, respectively (log-rank P = 0.88). Covariate analysis did not alter these findings. Median leukocyte nadirs were 1800 for CFP and 1500 for CMFP, with 22% and 21%, respectively, having nadirs less than 1000/microliters. Emesis was more frequent on CFP (49%) than on CMFP (26%) but was severe in only 7% and 5%, respectively. It is concluded that despite a higher response rate on CMFP and some differences in toxicities including a higher reported incidence of emesis on CFP, there was no substantial difference in efficacy or tolerability between the two regimens. Two intensive chemotherapy regimens CFPMV (Cytoxan [cyclophosphamide], 5-fluorouracil, prednisone, methotrexate, vincristine) and CA (Cytoxan, Adriamycin [doxorubicin]) were tested against a moderate regimen, CFP, in a prospective three-arm, randomized study with crossover when relapse or failure occurred, in order to assess whether the response, duration of remission, and survival can be altered by using more intensive regimens as first-line or as rescue therapy. All three regimens were equally effective as initial chemotherapy: CFP 26/46 (57%); CFPMV 31/48 (65%) and CA 26/47 (55%) (P = 0.61) with the least toxicity for the CFP regimen. Median duration of remission were 9.5, 11, and 9 months, respectively. Complete responses were almost identical in all three regimens: 4/46 (9%); 6/48 (12%) and 5/47 (11%) (P = 0.94). CFPMV was an effective regimen as second-line therapy: 11/33 (33%) or third-line therapy: 7/21 (33%). The CA regimen was equally effective as second-line therapy: 8/25 (32%), suggesting that intensive regimens provide an effective rescue therapy, as well in previous responders as in nonresponders. Initial intensive regimens have not substantially altered long-term survival in the whole group of treated patients, Arm II (CFPMV----CA----CFP) 17.6 months; Arm III (CA----CFP----CFPMV) 12.3 months when compared with initial moderate regimens Arm I (CFP----CFPMV----CA) 16.6 months (P = 0.24). The same lack of difference in survival was noticed in responder patients in each arm: Arm II 19.0 months; Arm III 16.0 months versus Arm I 22.0 months (P = 0.13). Our data suggest that a moderate regimen is as effective as more intense regimens for induction therapy in metastatic breast cancer, with less toxicity, preserving the opportunity for an effective rescue therapy with intensive regimens in second or third-line chemotherapy. To compare two different timings of radiation treatment in patients with breast cancer who underwent conservative surgery and were candidates to receive adjuvant cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) chemotherapy.
                A total of 206 patients who had quadrantectomy and axillary dissection for breast cancer and were planned to receive adjuvant CMF chemotherapy were randomized to concurrent or sequential radiotherapy. Radiotherapy was delivered only to the whole breast through tangential fields to a dose of 50 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks, followed by an electron boost of 10-15 Gy in 4-6 fractions to the tumor bed.
                No differences in 5-year breast recurrence-free, metastasis-free, disease-free, and overall survival were observed in the two treatment groups. All patients completed the planned radiotherapy. No evidence of an increased risk of toxicity was observed between the two arms. No difference in radiotherapy and in the chemotherapy dose intensity was observed in the two groups.
                In patients with negative surgical margins receiving adjuvant chemotherapy, radiotherapy can be delayed to up to 7 months. Concurrent administration of CMF chemotherapy and radiotherapy is safe and might be reserved for patients at high risk of local recurrence, such as those with positive surgical margins or larger tumor diameters. The aim of this study was to assess a potential advantage in survival by neoadjuvant as compared to adjuvant chemotherapy. 414 premenopausal patients with T2-T3 N0-N1 M0 breast cancer were randomised to receive either four cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, 5-fluorouracil), followed by local-regional treatment (group I) or four cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy after primary irradiation +/- surgery (group II). Surgery was limited to those patients with a persisting mass after irradiation, and aimed to be as conservative as possible. 390 patients were evaluable. With a median follow-up of 54 months, we observed a statistically significant difference (P = 0.039) in survival in favour of the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group. A similar trend was seen when the time to metastatic recurrence was evaluated (P = 0.09). At this stage, no difference in disease-free interval or local recurrence between these two groups could be observed. The mean total dose of chemotherapy administered was similar in both groups. On average, group I had more intensive chemotherapy regimes (doxorubicin P = 0.02) but fewer treatment courses (P = 0.008) as compared to the treated patients in group II. Haematological tolerance was reduced when chemotherapy succeeded to exclusive irradiation. Breast conservation was identical for both groups at the end of primary treatment (82 and 77% for groups I and II, respectively). Of the 191 evaluable patients in the neoadjuvant treatment arm, 65% had an objective response (> 50% regression) following four cycles of chemotherapy. The objective response rate to primary irradiation (55 Gy) was 85%. Improved survival figures in the neoadjuvant treatment arm could be the result of the early initiation of chemotherapy, but we cannot exclude that this difference might be attributable to a slightly more aggressive treatment. So far, the trend in favour of decreased metastases was not statistically significant. The local control appeared similar in both subgroups. Eighty-five postmenopausal women with metastatic breast cancer were randomized to receive aminoglutethimide (AG), medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), or AG+MPA. Patients with aggressive visceral disease were excluded. Response was observed in 36% of the patients in the AG treatment group, 31% in the MPA treatment group, and 47% in the combination treatment group. Statistical analysis showed that the percentage of responders was not different among the three treatment groups. Similarly, the duration of response did not differ. Toxicity of all three regimens was moderate, not necessitating discontinuation of treatment. In conclusion, AG, MPA and the combination of AG+MPA were found to be equally effective therapies for metastatic breast cancer in postmenopausal women with nonaggressive visceral disease. The lack of statistically significant superiority of the combination of AG+MPA suggests that sequential endocrine monotherapies may be more beneficial than combined hormonotherapies for this patient population. Breast cancer with extensive axillary-lymph-node involvement has a poor prognosis after conventional treatment. In trials with historical controls, high-dose chemotherapy produced improved outcomes. We compared an intensive double-cycle high-dose chemotherapy regimen with an accelerated conventionally dosed regimen in high-risk breast cancer in a multicentre trial.
                Patients with at least nine positive nodes were randomly assigned either two courses of accelerated (2-week intervals, with filgrastim support), conventionally dosed epirubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by two courses of high-dose chemotherapy (epirubicin, cyclophosphamide, and thiotepa supported by peripheral-blood progenitors) or four identical cycles of epirubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by three cycles of accelerated cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil. The primary endpoint was event-free survival. Analyses were done both by intention to treat and per protocol.
                403 patients were enrolled; 201 were assigned high-dose chemotherapy and 202 conventional treatment. The mean number of positive nodes was 17.6, and median follow-up was 48.6 months. 4-year event-free survival (intention-to-treat analysis) was 60% (95% CI 53-67) in the high-dose chemotherapy group and 44% (37-52) in the control group (p=0.00069). The corresponding overall survival was 75% (69-82) versus 70% (64-77; p=0.02). There were no treatment-related deaths.
                Our finding of significant improvements in both event-free and overall survival for high-dose chemotherapy compared with a dose-dense conventional regimen contrasts with the results of other studies. The discrepancy might be due partly to design differences (tandem, brief induction) between our regimen and those studied in other trials. This approach merits further study. Since chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer is not curative, consideration of the quality of life is important in selecting a treatment regimen. We conducted a randomized trial comparing continuous chemotherapy, administered until disease progression was evident, with intermittent therapy, whereby treatment was stopped after three cycles and then repeated for three more cycles only when there was evidence of disease progression. Each approach was tested with doxorubicin combined with cyclophosphamide or with cyclophosphamide combined with methotrexate, fluorouracil, and prednisone. Intermittent therapy resulted in a significantly worse response (P = 0.02 by Mann-Whitney test), a significantly shorter time to disease progression (relative risk based on proportional-hazards model, 1.8; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.4 to 2.4), and a trend toward shorter survival (relative risk, 1.3; confidence interval, 0.99 to 1.6). The quality of life was expressed as linear-analogue self-assessment scores for physical well-being, mood, pain, and appetite and as a quality-of-life index. It improved significantly during the first three cycles, when all patients received treatment. Thereafter, intermittent therapy was associated with worse scores for physical well-being (by 23 percent of scale; 95 percent confidence interval, 11 to 35 percent), mood (25 percent; 13 to 37 percent), and appetite (12 percent; 0 to 24 percent) and for the quality-of-life index as indicated by the patient (14 percent; 5 to 23 percent) and the physician (16 percent; 7 to 26 percent). Changes in the quality of life were independent prognostic factors in proportional-hazards models of subsequent survival. We conclude that, as tested, continuous chemotherapy is better than intermittent chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer. In premenopausal women with metastatic breast cancer, differences in survival curves early during follow-up can be misleading. The authors therefore analyzed long-term survival in 378 patients, entered in three randomized trials, started between 1973 and 1978. Combined data from the three trials were used to increase the power for identifying prognostic variables. Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) trial 7382 randomized patients to oophorectomy plus either cyclophosphamide or combination chemotherapy or observation. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) 2174 randomized patients who had not progressed 3 months after oophorectomy to combination chemotherapy or combination chemotherapy or observation. Trial ECOG 2177 randomized estrogen receptor (ER) positive or ER-unknown patients to oophorectomy plus combination chemotherapy or immediate combination chemotherapy, and ER-negative patients were directly assigned to combination chemotherapy. Hence ER-negative patients need not have been healthy enough to be randomized to oophorectomy. With only 14% of the patients still alive, median survival on the three studies was 30, 24, and 28 months. The median survival of individual treatments changed noticeably in ECOG 2174 and ECOG 2177 with long-term follow-up. At this time there are no differences in survival between randomized regimens in any of the three trials. In a multivariate model, factors associated with significantly poorer survival were visceral-dominant disease, nodal metastases, breast metastases, age younger than 45 years, ER negativity, and not receiving chemotherapy immediately after oophorectomy. This treatment difference was thus not due to imbalances in the prognostic variables used in the model, but it may be due to imbalances of unknown prognostic factors or differences in patient selection. The predictive value of estrogen receptor (ER) level for response to chemotherapy was studied in 182 patients with metastatic breast cancer in a prospective study. Patients were stratified according to ER status and dominant site of disease and randomized to one of three regimens: cyclophosphamide, 5-Fluorouracil, and prednisone (CFP) versus CFP, methotrexate, and vincristine (CFPMV) versus doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC). There was no significant differences in all response categories (P = 0.21), was taken as a predictor for response to chemotherapy, there was no significant difference in overall response (P = 0.61) between ER+ (62/108, 57%) and ER- patients (31/49, 63%). However, there was a significant trend toward a higher degree of response in ER- patients (more complete response [CR] nine of 49, 18%, and fewer failures six of 49, 12%) than in ER+ (less CR seven of 108, 7%, and more failures 37/108, 34%) (P = 0.006). Patients with higher measured levels of ER showed worse response (Kendall's tau C, P = 0.026). This trend for ER- patients to have better response than ER+ patients was generally consistent, regardless of the predominant site of metastases or chemotherapy regimen (P = 0.04 for CFP; P = 0.08 for CFPMV; and P = 0.20 for AC). The advantage of a better response for ER- patients was nullified by an earlier relapse which was reflected in longer duration of remission, time to treatment failure, and survival in favor of ER+ patients (12.3 months versus 7.3 months remission duration, 18.7 months versus 13.6 months survival in partial responders). These data suggest that ER- patients respond to a higher extent to chemotherapy but relapse sooner than ER+ patients, suggesting a more rapid growth for ER- tumors. In patients with ER- tumors and poorer prognosis on conventional chemotherapy, new trials of intensive consolidation after response should be considered. Long-term survival of patients with metastatic breast cancer treated on two prospective stratified randomised trials has been analysed. Patients on study B122 received either cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil (CMF) or cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin and 5-fluorouracil (CAF). On study B141 patients received CAF or mitolactol (dibromodulcitol), doxorubicin and vincristine alternating after every three cycles with three cycles of CMF (DAV/CMF). Long-term follow-up of 172 patients showed no significant survival difference (in multivariate regression models) for treatment with either CMF vs. CAF or CAF vs. DAV/CMF. The difference in median survival times between CMF and CAF showed a trend in favour of CAF. Advances in the management of metastatic breast cancer in postmenopausal women obtained by doxorubicin regimens have had a small but measurable impact on survival, but known patient discriminants were not overridden by the treatment regimens investigated in these studies. The Head and Neck Intergroup conducted a phase III randomized trial to test the benefit of adding chemotherapy to radiation in patients with unresectable squamous cell head and neck cancer.
                Eligible patients were randomly assigned between arm A (the control), single daily fractionated radiation (70 Gy at 2 Gy/d); arm B, identical radiation therapy with concurrent bolus cisplatin, given on days 1, 22, and 43; and arm C, a split course of single daily fractionated radiation and three cycles of concurrent infusional fluorouracil and bolus cisplatin chemotherapy, 30 Gy given with the first cycle and 30 to 40 Gy given with the third cycle. Surgical resection was encouraged if possible after the second chemotherapy cycle on arm C and, if necessary, as salvage therapy on all three treatment arms. Survival data were compared between each experimental arm and the control arm using a one-sided log-rank test.
                Between 1992 and 1999, 295 patients were entered on this trial. This did not meet the accrual goal of 362 patients and resulted in premature study closure. Grade 3 or worse toxicity occurred in 52% of patients enrolled in arm A, compared with 89% enrolled in arm B (P <.0001) and 77% enrolled in arm C (P <.001). With a median follow-up of 41 months, the 3-year projected overall survival for patients enrolled in arm A is 23%, compared with 37% for arm B (P =.014) and 27% for arm C (P = not significant).
                The addition of concurrent high-dose, single-agent cisplatin to conventional single daily fractionated radiation significantly improves survival, although it also increases toxicity. The loss of efficacy resulting from split-course radiation was not offset by either multiagent chemotherapy or the possibility of midcourse surgery. The optimal integration of chemotherapy with radiation (RT) for patients with early-stage breast cancer remains uncertain. We present the long-term results of a prospective randomized trial to address this question.
                Two hundred forty-four patients were randomly assigned after conservative breast surgery to receive 12 weeks of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, methotrexate, fluorouracil, and prednisone (CAMFP) before RT (CT-first) or after RT (RT-first). Median follow-up for surviving patients was 135 months.
                There were no significant differences between the CT-first and RT-first arms in time to any event, distant metastasis, or death. Sites of first failure were also not significantly different.
                Among breast cancer patients treated with conservative surgery, there is no advantage to giving RT before adjuvant chemotherapy. However, this study does not have enough statistical power to rule out a clinically important survival benefit for either sequence. Primary chemotherapy in localised breast cancer may prevent tumour spread during surgical treatment and reduce proliferation of micrometastases. A randomised clinical trial, in 196 premenopausal and postmenopausal patients with operable (T2-3, N0-1b) breast cancer, was started in November 1983 at the Institut Curie to compare neoadjuvant and adjuvant regimens of chemotherapy with radiotherapy with or without surgery. The patients have been followed up for 35-70 months (median 54). A neoadjuvant group received two monthly cycles of intravenous doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide/5-fluorouracil before locoregional therapy and four cycles subsequently. Six monthly cycles following locoregional therapy were administered to the adjuvant group. Because of inclusion of postmenopausal and/or node-negative patients, compliance was less than optimal in 39 patients who were analysed separately according to actual dose received. Tumour response, evaluated after two cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, was significantly associated with dose (P = 0.003). Survival showed a slight non-significant advantage for the neoadjuvant group. Survival plotted by actual dose was also similar. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy was safe and at least as effective as the adjuvant regimen. Patients have been accrued to a subsequent larger trial of chemotherapy as first-line treatment. There were 79 patients with squamous cell head and neck cancer randomized to receive simultaneous or 1 hour sequential methotrexate-5 fluorouracil (MTX--5-FU) chemotherapy: 47 patients were previously untreated and 32 patients had recurrent disease. The treatment groups were comparable for important prognostic features. The median survival for the 47 newly presenting patients was 22 months and for recurrent disease patients was 14 months. No difference could be detected in the survival of patients who received simultaneous versus sequential chemotherapy. When only chemotherapy responders were compared, no difference in survival was detected for those who received sequential versus simultaneous therapy. Subsequently, 19 chemotherapy responders received radical radiation therapy, and 15 were rendered disease-free whereas only 4 of 17 chemotherapy nonresponders were rendered disease-free by subsequent radiation (P = .002). The survival of the 19 chemotherapy responders was 34 months compared with 16 months for the 17 chemotherapy nonresponders treated with radiation. We conclude that there is no therapeutic advantage for 1 hour sequential MTX-5 FU chemotherapy compared with simultaneous use of these drugs in squamous cell head and neck cancer. Chemotherapy responders are more likely to respond to radiation therapy. A multicentric randomized study was conducted to compare the CNF regimen (cyclophosphamide at 600 mg/m2/iv, mitoxantrone at 10 mg/m2/iv, 5-fluorouracil at 600 mg/m2/iv) with the CMF regimen (methotrexate at 40 mg/m2/iv instead of mitoxantrone) administered every 3 weeks to previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer patients. In 119 patients evaluable for therapeutic response, complete plus partial response rate was 44% for CNF and 29% for CMF (p>0.05; 95% C.I.: CNF=32%-56%, CMF=18%-40%). No statistically significant difference regarding time to progression, over survival or response to second-line chemotherapy with Epidoxorubicin was observed between the two regimens. Both regimens were well tolerated, but the percent of alopecia and leucopenia was significantly higher in the CNF patient group (31% versus 5% and 18% versus 0%, respectively; p<0.01). In conclusion, CNF was demonstrated to be slightly more toxic but more effective as compared to CMF (global response: 44% versus 29%, respectively). These findings should be taken into consideration when planning future studies of adjuvant chemotherapy. Tamoxifen and aminoglutethimide are two hormone therapies reported to be effective palliative approaches for patients with metastatic breast cancer. The current trial was designed to evaluate their relative therapeutic effectiveness.
                Two hundred forty-nine postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer were randomized in an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Phase III study to treatment with adrenalectomy, aminoglutethimide, or tamoxifen with crossover to alternate therapy if disease progressed. Adrenalectomy was dropped as a treatment after 2 years because of low patient accrual.
                There were 216 evaluable patients entered in the study with 108 initially randomized to aminoglutethimide and 108 to receive tamoxifen therapy. The overall response rate for aminoglutethimide was 45%, and for tamoxifen it was 27%. One institution had a response rate of 60% with aminoglutethimide and only 4% with tamoxifen, whereas all of the other institutions combined had a response rate of 41% with aminoglutethimide and 34% with tamoxifen. Eighty-seven evaluable patients crossed over to the other drug (44 to aminoglutethimide and 43 to tamoxifen). There was a 36% response rate to aminoglutethimide and 19% to tamoxifen, with stable disease in 36% of both groups. The overall survival rates were identical. Toxicity was greater with aminoglutethimide (dermatitis) but was not life-threatening. Glucocorticoid support with either dexamethasone or hydrocortisone was acceptable.
                Both aminoglutethimide and tamoxifen produced responses in postmenopausal patients with breast cancer, and a significant number of crossover responses were observed. Of interest in this randomized study was the observation that one institution had a markedly different response rate on induction, reinforcing the need for multi-institution trials in Phase III studies.
Combination chemotherapy regimens show a statistically significant advantage for survival, tumor response and time to progression in women with metastatic breast cancer but they also produce more toxicity. An unresolved question is whether combination regimens are more effective than single agents given sequentially.