First-line bevacizumab plus taxane-based chemotherapy for locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer: safety and efficacy in an open-label study in 2,251 patients. Combination chemotherapy for metastatic breast carcinoma. Prospective comparison of multiple drug therapy with L-phenylalanine mustard. 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. Differential response to chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer in relation to estrogen receptor level. Results of a prospective randomized study. Randomized trial of 3 different regimens of combination chemotherapy in patients receiving simultaneously a hormonal treatment for advanced breast cancer. A randomized study of intensive versus moderate chemotherapy programs in metastatic breast cancer. Combination chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer: two regimens containing adriamycin. 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. Randomized clinical trial of CFP versus CMFP in women with metastatic breast cancer. 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. Pazopanib in locally advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma: results of a randomized phase III trial.
First-line bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy significantly improves efficacy versus chemotherapy alone in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer (LR/mBC). This large, open-label study further assesses first-line bevacizumab with taxane-based chemotherapy in routine oncology practice.
                Patients with HER2-negative LR/mBC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) of zero to two and no prior chemotherapy for LR/mBC received bevacizumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks or 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks plus taxane-based chemotherapy (or other non-anthracycline chemotherapy) until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity or patient withdrawal. The primary end point was safety; time to progression (TtP) was a secondary end point.
                Median follow-up in 2251 treated patients was 12.7 months. Median age was 53 years and 94% of patients had ECOG PS of zero or one. Bevacizumab was most commonly administered with single-agent paclitaxel (35%), single-agent docetaxel (33%) or taxane-based combination therapy (10%). The most frequent grade ≥3 adverse event (AE) was neutropenia (5.4%). Grade ≥3 AEs previously associated with bevacizumab included hypertension (4.4%), arterial/venous thromboembolism (3.2%), proteinuria (1.7%) and bleeding (1.4%). No new bevacizumab safety signals were observed. Median TtP was 9.5 months (95% confidence interval 9.1-9.9).
                The study population in ATHENA was more representative of general oncology practice than populations enrolled into randomised trials, although there may have been some bias towards younger, fitter patients. The safety and efficacy of bevacizumab-taxane therapy in this large study were consistent with results from randomised first-line trials. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. PURPOSE Pazopanib is an oral angiogenesis inhibitor targeting vascular endothelial growth factor receptor, platelet-derived growth factor receptor, and c-Kit. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study evaluated efficacy and safety of pazopanib monotherapy in treatment-naive and cytokine-pretreated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Adult patients with measurable, locally advanced, and/or metastatic RCC were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive oral pazopanib or placebo. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival, tumor response rate (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors), and safety. Radiographic assessments of tumors were independently reviewed. Results Of 435 patients enrolled, 233 were treatment naive (54%) and 202 were cytokine pretreated (46%). PFS was significantly prolonged with pazopanib compared with placebo in the overall study population (median, PFS 9.2 v 4.2 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.46; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.62; P < .0001), the treatment-naive subpopulation (median PFS 11.1 v 2.8 months; HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.60; P < .0001), and the cytokine-pretreated subpopulation (median PFS, 7.4 v 4.2 months; HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.84; P < .001). The objective response rate was 30% with pazopanib compared with 3% with placebo (P < .001). The median duration of response was longer than 1 year. The most common adverse events were diarrhea, hypertension, hair color changes, nausea, anorexia, and vomiting. There was no evidence of clinically important differences in quality of life for pazopanib versus placebo. CONCLUSION Pazopanib demonstrated significant improvement in PFS and tumor response compared with placebo in treatment-naive and cytokine-pretreated patients with advanced and/or metastatic RCC.
When all trials are considered, taxane-containing regimens appear to improve overall survival, time to progression and overall response in women with metastatic breast cancer. The degree of heterogeneity encountered indicates that taxane-containing regimens are more effective than some, but not all non-taxane-containing regimens.