Randomized phase II trial of first-line trastuzumab plus docetaxel and capecitabine compared with trastuzumab plus docetaxel in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer.
AuthorsWardley, Andrew M
Zetina, Luis M
De Fátima Dias Gaui, Maria
Reyes, Douglas Otero
Torres, Antonio Antón
AffiliationCancer Research UK Department of Medical Oncology, The Christie, 550 Wilmslow Rd, Manchester, M20 4BX, United Kingdom. firstname.lastname@example.org
MetadataShow full item record
AbstractPURPOSE To evaluate trastuzumab (H) and docetaxel (T) with or without capecitabine (X) as first-line combination therapy for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) -positive advanced breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with HER2-positive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer were randomly assigned to H (8 mg/kg loading; 6 mg/kg every 3 weeks) plus T (75 mg/m(2) in HTX arm, 100 mg/m(2) in HT arm, every 3 weeks) with or without X (950 mg/m(2) twice per day on days 1 to 14 every 3 weeks). The primary end point was overall response rate (ORR). Results In 222 patients, median follow-up was approximately 24 months. ORR was high with both regimens (70.5% with HTX; 72.7% with HT; P = .717); complete response rate was 23.2% with HTX compared with 16.4% with HT. HTX demonstrated significantly longer progression-free survival: median 17.9 months compared with 12.8 months with HT (hazard ratio, 0.72; P = .045), which translates to a gain of around 5 months. Two-year survival probability was 75% with HTX compared with 66% with HT. Febrile neutropenia (27% v 15%) and grade 3/4 neutropenia (77% v 54%) incidences were higher with HT than HTX. Treatment-related grade 3 hand-foot syndrome (17% v < 1%) and grade 3/4 diarrhea (11% v 4%) occurred more commonly with HTX than HT. One case of congestive heart failure occurred in each arm. CONCLUSION HTX is an effective and feasible first-line therapy for HER2-positive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer, although it should be reserved for patients with good performance status who are not receiving long-term steroids.
CitationRandomized phase II trial of first-line trastuzumab plus docetaxel and capecitabine compared with trastuzumab plus docetaxel in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. 2010, 28 (6):976-83 J Clin Oncol
JournalJournal of Clinical Oncology
- Randomized phase II trial of the efficacy and safety of trastuzumab combined with docetaxel in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive metastatic breast cancer administered as first-line treatment: the M77001 study group.
- Authors: Marty M, Cognetti F, Maraninchi D, Snyder R, Mauriac L, Tubiana-Hulin M, Chan S, Grimes D, Antón A, Lluch A, Kennedy J, O'Byrne K, Conte P, Green M, Ward C, Mayne K, Extra JM
- Issue date: 2005 Jul 1
- Trastuzumab beyond progression in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive advanced breast cancer: a german breast group 26/breast international group 03-05 study.
- Authors: von Minckwitz G, du Bois A, Schmidt M, Maass N, Cufer T, de Jongh FE, Maartense E, Zielinski C, Kaufmann M, Bauer W, Baumann KH, Clemens MR, Duerr R, Uleer C, Andersson M, Stein RC, Nekljudova V, Loibl S
- Issue date: 2009 Apr 20
- Trastuzumab plus capecitabine and docetaxel as first-line therapy for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer: phase II results.
- Authors: Michalaki V, Fotiou S, Gennatas S, Gennatas C
- Issue date: 2010 Jul
- AVEREL: a randomized phase III Trial evaluating bevacizumab in combination with docetaxel and trastuzumab as first-line therapy for HER2-positive locally recurrent/metastatic breast cancer.
- Authors: Gianni L, Romieu GH, Lichinitser M, Serrano SV, Mansutti M, Pivot X, Mariani P, Andre F, Chan A, Lipatov O, Chan S, Wardley A, Greil R, Moore N, Prot S, Pallaud C, Semiglazov V
- Issue date: 2013 May 10
- Phase III randomized study comparing docetaxel plus trastuzumab with vinorelbine plus trastuzumab as first-line therapy of metastatic or locally advanced human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast cancer: the HERNATA study.
- Authors: Andersson M, Lidbrink E, Bjerre K, Wist E, Enevoldsen K, Jensen AB, Karlsson P, Tange UB, Sørensen PG, Møller S, Bergh J, Langkjer ST
- Issue date: 2011 Jan 20
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
Ovarian cancer among 8,005 women from a breast cancer family history clinic: no increased risk of invasive ovarian cancer in families testing negative for BRCA1 and BRCA2.Ingham, S; Warwick, J; Buchan, I; Sahin, S; O'Hara, Catherine; Moran, Anthony; Howell, Anthony; Evans, D; Centre for Health Informatics, Institute of Population Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. (2013-06)Mutations in BRCA1/2 genes confer ovarian, alongside breast, cancer risk. We examined the risk of developing ovarian cancer in BRCA1/2-positive families and if this risk is extended to BRCA negative families.
Equivalence of three or four cycles of bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin chemotherapy and of a 3- or 5-day schedule in good-prognosis germ cell cancer: a randomized study of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Genitourinary Tract Cancer Cooperative Group and the Medical Research Council.De Wit, Ronald; Roberts, J Trevor; Wilkinson, Peter M; De Mulder, Pieter H M; Mead, Graham M; Fosså, S D; Cook, P; De Prijck, Linda; Stenning, S; Collette, L; Rotterdam Cancer Institute and University Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. email@example.com (2001-03-15)PURPOSE: To test the equivalence of three versus four cycles of bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin (BEP) and of the 5-day schedule versus 3 days per cycle in good-prognosis germ cell cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study was designed as a 2 x 2 factorial trial. The aim was to rule out a 5% decrease in the 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate. The study included the assessment of patient quality of life. A cycle of BEP consisted of etoposide 500 mg/m(2), administered at either 100 mg/m(2) days 1 through 5 or 165 mg/m(2) days 1 through 3, cisplatin 100 mg/m(2), administered at either 20 mg/m(2) days 1 through 5 or 50 mg/m(2) days 1 and 2. Bleomycin 30 mg was administered on days 1, 8, and 15 during cycles 1 through 3. The randomization procedure allowed some investigators to participate only in the comparison of three versus four cycles. RESULTS: From March 1995 until April 1998, 812 patients were randomly assigned to receive three or four cycles: of these, 681 were also randomly assigned to the 5-day or the 3-day schedule. Histology, marker values, and disease extent are well balanced in the treatment arms of the two comparisons. The projected 2-year PFS is 90.4% on three cycles and 89.4% on four cycles. The difference in PFS between three and four cycles is -1.0% (80% confidence limit [CL], -3.8%, +1.8%). Equivalence for three versus four cycles is claimed because both the upper and lower bounds of the 80% CL are less than 5%. In the 5- versus 3-day comparison, the projected 2-year PFS is 88.8% and 89.7%, respectively (difference, -0.9%, (80% CL, -4.1%, +2.2%). Hence, equivalence is claimed in this comparison also. Frequencies of hematologic and nonhematologic toxicities were essentially similar. Quality of life was maintained better in patients receiving three cycles; no differences were detected between 3 and 5 days of treatment. CONCLUSION: We conclude that three cycles of BEP, with etoposide at 500 mg/m(2), is sufficient therapy in good-prognosis germ cell cancer and that the administration of the chemotherapy in 3 days has no detrimental effect on the effectiveness of the BEP regimen.
Penetrance estimates for BRCA1 and BRCA2 based on genetic testing in a Clinical Cancer Genetics service setting: risks of breast/ovarian cancer quoted should reflect the cancer burden in the family.Evans, D Gareth R; Shenton, Andrew; Woodward, Emma; Lalloo, Fiona; Howell, Anthony; Maher, Eamonn R; Academic Unit of Medical Genetics and Regional Genetics Service, St Mary's Hospital Manchester M13 0JH, UK. firstname.lastname@example.org (2008)BACKGROUND: The identification of a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation in familial breast cancer kindreds allows genetic testing of at risk relatives. However, considerable controversy exists regarding the cancer risks in women who test positive for the family mutation. METHODS: We reviewed 385 unrelated families (223 with BRCA1 and 162 with BRCA2 mutations) ascertained through two regional cancer genetics services. We estimated the penetrance for both breast and ovarian cancer in female mutation carriers (904 proven mutation carriers - 1442 females in total assumed to carry the mutation) and also assessed the effect on penetrance of mutation position and birth cohort. RESULTS: Breast cancer penetrance to 70 and to 80 years was 68% (95%CI 64.7-71.3%) and 79.5% (95%CI 75.5-83.5%) respectively for BRCA1 and 75% (95%CI 71.7-78.3%) and 88% (95%CI 85.3-91.7%) for BRCA2. Ovarian cancer risk to 70 and to 80 years was 60% (95%CI 65-71%) and 65% (95%CI 75-84%) for BRCA1 and 30% (95%CI 25.5-34.5%) and 37% (95%CI 31.5-42.5%) for BRCA2. These risks were borne out by a prospective study of cancer in the families and genetic testing of unaffected relatives. We also found evidence of a strong cohort effect with women born after 1940 having a cumulative risk of 22% for breast cancer by 40 years of age compared to 8% in women born before 1930 (p = 0.0005). CONCLUSION: In high-risk families, selected in a genetics service setting, women who test positive for the familial BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation are likely to have cumulative breast cancer risks in keeping with the estimates obtained originally from large families. This is particularly true for women born after 1940.