Cirrincione, Constance

PurposeWe compared nab-paclitaxel or ixabepilone once per week to paclitaxel with bevacizumab as first-line therapy for patients with advanced breast cancer (BC) to evaluate progression-free survival (PFS) for nab-paclitaxel or ixabepilone versus paclitaxel.Patients and MethodsEligible patients were age ≥ 18 years with chemotherapy-naive advanced BC. Patients were randomly assigned to bevacizumab with paclitaxel 90 mg/m2(arm A), nab-paclitaxel 150 mg/m2(arm B), or ixabepilone 16 mg/m2(arm C), once per week for 3 of 4 weeks. Planned enrollment was 900 patients, which would give 88% power to detect a hazard ratio of 0.73.ResultsIn all, 799 patients were enrolled, and 783 received treatment (97% received bevacizumab). Arm C was closed for futility at the first interim analysis (n = 241), and arm A (n = 267) and arm B (n = 275) were closed for futility at the second interim analysis. Median PFS for paclitaxel was 11 months, ixabepilone was inferior to paclitaxel (PFS, 7.4 months; hazard ratio, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.31 to 1.93; P < .001), and nab-paclitaxel was not superior to paclitaxel (PFS, 9.3 months; hazard ratio, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.45; P = .054). Results were concordant with overall survival; time to treatment failure was significantly shorter in both experimental arms v paclitaxel. Hematologic and nonhematologic toxicity, including peripheral neuropathy, was increased with nab-paclitaxel, with more frequent and earlier dose reductions.ConclusionIn patients with chemotherapy-naive advanced BC, ixabepilone once per week was inferior to paclitaxel, and nab-paclitaxel was not superior with a trend toward inferiority. Toxicity was increased in the experimental arms, particularly for nab-paclitaxel. Paclitaxel once per week remains the preferred palliative chemotherapy in this setting.

PurposeOptimal adjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer balances efficacy and toxicity. We sought to determine whether single-agent paclitaxel (T) was inferior to doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC), when each was administered for four or six cycles of therapy, and whether it offered less toxicity.Patients and MethodsPatients with operable breast cancer with 0 to 3 positive nodes were enrolled onto the study to address the noninferiority of single-agent T to AC, defined as the one-sided 95% upper-bound CI (UCB) of hazard ratio (HR) of T versus AC less than 1.30 for the primary end point of relapse-free survival (RFS). As a 2 × 2 factorial design, duration of therapy was also addressed and was previously reported.ResultsWith 3,871 patients enrolled onto the trial, a median follow-up period of 6.1 years, and 437 RFS events, we achieved an HR of 1.26 (one sided 95% UCB, 1.48; favoring AC does not allow a conclusion of noninferiority of T with AC; UCB > 1.3). With 266 patient deaths, the HR for overall survival (OS) was 1.27 favoring AC (UCB, 1.56). The estimated absolute advantage of AC at 5 years is 3% for RFS (91 v 88%) and 1% for OS (95 v 94%). All nine treatment-related deaths were patients receiving AC and are included in the analyses of both RFS and OS. Hematologic toxicity was more common in patients treated with AC, and neuropathy was more common in patients treated with T.ConclusionThis trial did not show noninferiority of T to AC, a conclusion that is unlikely to change with additional events and follow-up. T was less toxic than AC.

PurposeThe ideal duration of adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with lower risk primary breast cancer is not known. Cancer and Leukemia Group B trial 40101 was conducted using a phase III factorial design to define whether six cycles of a chemotherapy regimen are superior to four cycles. We also sought to determine whether paclitaxel (T) is as efficacious as doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC), but with reduced toxicity.Patients and MethodsBetween 2002 and 2008, the study enrolled women with operable breast cancer and zero to three positive nodes. Patients were randomly assigned to either four or six cycles of either AC or T. Study stratifiers were estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor (ER/PgR), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), and menopausal status. After 2003, all treatment was administered in dose-dense fashion. The primary efficacy end point was relapse-free survival (RFS).ResultsA total of 3,171 patients were enrolled; 94% were node-negative and 6% had one to three positive nodes. At a median follow-up of 5.3 years, the 4-year RFS was 90.9% and 91.8% for six and four cycles, respectively. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of six to four cycles regarding RFS was 1.03 (95% CI, 0.84 to 1.28; P = .77). The 4-year OS was 95.3% and 96.3% for six and four cycles, respectively, with an HR of six to four cycles of 1.12 (95% CI, 0.84 to 1.49; P = .44). There was no interaction between treatment duration and chemotherapy regimen, ER/PgR, or HER2 status on RFS or OS.ConclusionFor women with resected primary breast cancer and zero to three positive nodes, we found no evidence that extending chemotherapy regimens of AC or single-agent T from four to six cycles improves clinical outcome.