Annals of Oncology Advance Access originally published online on June 9, 2006
Annals of Oncology 2006 17(8):1205-1212; doi:10.1093/annonc/mdl135
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© 2006 European Society for Medical Oncology
Toxicity and health-related quality of life in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant docetaxel, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide (TAC) or 5-fluorouracil, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (FAC): impact of adding primary prophylactic granulocyte-colony stimulating factor to the TAC regimen
1 Hospital Universitario San Carlos, Madrid, Spain; 2 H. Clínico Universitario de Valencia, Valencia, Spain; 3 Corporación Sanitaria Parc Taulí, Sabadell, Spain; 4 Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, Valencia, Spain; 5 Centro Oncolígico de Galicia, La Coruña, Spain; 6 H. General Universitario de Alicante, Alicante, Spain; 7 H. General Universitario de Elche, Elche, Spain; 8 Klinik und Poliklinik Gynäkologie, Halle, Germany; 9 C.H. Universitario Juan Canalejo, La Coruña, Spain; 10 PIVOTAL, Madrid, Spain; 11 HORE, Barcelona, Spain; 12 H. Universitario Miguel Servet, Zaragoza, Spain; 13 H. Clínico Universitario Lozano Blesa, Zaragoza, Spain; 14 H. De Basurto, Bilbao, Spain; 15 H. Universitario Virgen del Rocío, Sevilla, Spain; 16 Wielkopolskie Centrum Onkologii, Poznan, Poland; 17 H. de Terrassa, Terrasa, Spain; 18 H. Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla, Santander, Spain; 19 H. Clinic i Provincial, Barcelona, Spain; 20 C. H. Xeral-Calde, Lugo, Spain
* Correspondence to: Dr M. Martin, Servicio de Oncologia Medica, Hospital Universitario San Carlos, Spain. Tel: +34-91-3303546; Fax: +34-91-5436223; E-mail: mmartin{at}geicam.org
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract introductionpatients and methodsresultsdiscussionReferences |
|---|
Background: The aim of the study was to analyse the toxicity and health related quality of life (HRQoL) of breast cancer patients treated with FAC (5-fluorouracil, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide) and TAC (docetaxel, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide) with and without primary prophylactic G-CSF (PPG).
Patients and methods: This was a phase III study to compare FAC and TAC as adjuvant treatment of high-risk node-negative breast cancer patients. After the entry of the first 237 patients, the protocol was amended to include PPG in the TAC arm due to the high incidence of febrile neutropenia. A total of 1047 evaluable patients from 49 centres in Spain, two in Poland and four in Germany were included in the trial. Side-effects and the scores of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ BR-23 questionnaires were compared in the three groups (FAC, TAC pre-amendment and TAC post-amendment).
Results: The addition of PPG to TAC significantly reduced the incidence of neutropenic fever, grade 2–4 anaemia, asthenia, anorexia, nail disorders, stomatitis, myalgia and dysgeusia. Patient QoL decreased during chemotherapy, more with TAC than FAC, but returned to baseline values afterwards. The addition of PPG to TAC significantly reduced the percentage of patients with clinically relevant Global Health Status deterioration (10 or more points over baseline value) at the end of chemotherapy (64% versus 46%, P < 0.03).
Conclusions: The addition of PPG significantly reduces the incidence of neutropenic fever associated with TAC chemotherapy as well as that of some TAC-induced haematological and extrahaematological side-effects. The HRQoL of patients treated with TAC is worse than that of those treated with FAC but improves with the addition of PPG, particularly in the final part of chemotherapy treatment.
Key words: adjuvant chemotherapy, docetaxel, TAC, G-CSF, filgrastim, lenograstim, operable breast cancer
|
introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractintroductionpatients and methodsresultsdiscussionReferences |
|---|
Several randomised clinical trials and a comprehensive meta-analysis by the Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCCTG) has demonstrated that postsurgical CMF (cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil) chemotherapy significantly decreases the risk of recurrence and death in operable breast cancer patients [1
]. In the late 1970s and the 1980s, anthracycline-containing combinations (FAC, 5-fluorouracil, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide; FEC, 5-fluorouracil, epirubicin, cyclophosphamide; AC, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide; and others) were tested in prospective, randomised, adjuvant trials and were demonstrated to be slightly but significantly superior to CMF-like regimens [2]. More recently, a randomised phase III trial by the Breast Cancer International Research Group (BCIRG 001) has shown that the combination of docetaxel, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (the TAC regimen) is superior to FAC as adjuvant chemotherapy for node-positive operable breast cancer [3], reducing the risk of recurrence by 28% and the risk of death by 30%, and can be considered one of the new standards of care for these patients [4]. In this study, secondary prophylaxis with G-CSF (administration after the first cycle with neutropenic fever) in the TAC arm was mandatory, but primary prophylaxis with G-CSF (from the first cycle on, PPG) was not allowed. Unfortunately, TAC was clearly more toxic than FAC, not only with respect to neutropenic fever events (24.7% versus 2.5%, P = 0.001) [3], but also with respect to many extrahaematological side-effects, like asthenia, stomatitis, diarrhoea, myalgia and others. The health related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients treated with TAC was also inferior to that of those treated with FAC during the treatment period, although it returns to baseline values after the end of chemotherapy [3].
In 1998, the Spanish Breast Cancer Research Group (GEICAM, Grupo Español de Investigación en Cáncer de Mama) began the study GEICAM 9805, a phase III trial comparing the TAC regimen with FAC as adjuvant chemotherapy for high-risk, node-negative breast cancer (St Gallen criteria, 1988) [5]. In the initial protocol of this study, which had a design similar to that of BCIRG 001, PPG was not allowed. However, after the entry of 237 patients, the incidence of neutropenic fever events in the TAC arm became a relevant concern. Therefore, a protocol amendment was introduced in July 2000 and all subsequent TAC-treated patients received PPG during each cycle. The main objective of the GEICAM 9805 trial was to compare disease-free survival of patients treated with TAC and FAC. Secondary objectives were to compare overall survival, HRQoL and toxicity. We report here the differences in toxicities and HRQoL between patients treated with FAC, TAC without PPG and TAC with PPG.
|
patients and methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractintroductionpatients and methodsresultsdiscussionReferences |
|---|
selection of patients
Women between 18 and 71 years of age, who had undergone appropriate primary surgery for unilateral operable breast carcinoma (either mastectomy or tumorectomy/lumpectomy with free margins, plus axillary lymphadenectomy including at least 10 axillary lymph nodes) were considered eligible for inclusion in the trial. Patients without axillary involvement but with at least one high-risk criteria according to St Gallen 1998 (grade II/III, tumours >2 cm, age <35 or hormone-receptor-negative tumours) were eligible for the trial. Exclusion criteria were: any T4 or M1 disease; previous history of cancer; abnormal renal, liver or medular function; abnormal cardiac ejection function; other serious illness or medical conditions, including cardiac disease (i.e. myocardial infarction, cardiac insufficiency or uncontrolled arrhythmia/hypertension) and unstable diabetes mellitus.
The study was conducted in accordance with GCP/IHC rules, in compliance with local regulations and with approval of the ethics committees of the participating centres and the Spanish Health authorities (approval number 99/115). All patients provided written informed consent prior to the beginning specific protocol procedures. All relevant data were submitted to source verification by GEICAM monitors.
study design
This was a phase III, open-label, randomised study conducted at 49 centres in Spain, two centres in Poland and four centres in Germany comparing TAC with FAC as postsurgical adjuvant chemotherapy in women with high-risk, node-negative breast cancer.
All eligible patients were registered at GEICAM headquarters by facsimile transmission using a purpose-specific form, which included the most relevant inclusion criteria. The GEICAM study data manager verified that all eligibility criteria were met.
After stratification according to institution and menopausal status, patients were randomised to FAC or TAC. Chemotherapy regimens were: (i) FAC: 5-fluorouracil 500 mg/m2 intravenously (i.v.) day 1, doxorubicin 50 mg/m2 i.v. day 1, cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m2 i.v. day 1, every 3 weeks for six cycles; (ii) TAC: docetaxel 75 mg/m2 i.v. day 1, doxorubicin 50 mg/m2 i.v. day 1, cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m2 i.v. day 1, every 3 weeks for six cycles.
Patients on TAC received premedication with dexamethasone (six doses of 8 mg p.o., starting the night before chemotherapy and ending the evening of the day after chemotherapy) in order to prevent fluid retention. Antiemetic treatment with corticoids and selective 5-HT3 receptor antagonist drugs were recommended for both arms.
Primary prophylactic antibiotic therapy (ciprofloxacin 500 mg b.i.d. on days 5–14 of each cycle) was mandatory during the first chemotherapy course and subsequent cycles for patients treated with TAC. Primary prophylactic administration of G-CSF was not permitted in the original protocol. Initially, G-CSF was only allowed for cases of febrile neutropenia, infection and delayed recovery of absolute neutrophil count on day 21. After the first episode of febrile neutropenia, G-CSF was mandatory in subsequent courses in those patients. For patients with any grade of myelosuppression on day 21, the addition of G-CSF was permitted, chemotherapy treatment was delayed until recovery (
1500 ANC) and the entire scheduled dose was administered.
In July 2000, after 237 patients were enrolled (121 FAC; 116 TAC), the incidence of neutropenic fever events was reported to be nearly 25% in the TAC arm. Therefore, the protocol was amended to require PPG for the subsequent patients in the TAC arm to prevent neutropenic-related adverse events. Patients included in the TAC arm prior to the study amendment are defined as TAC-pre, while those recieving TAC after the study amendment were identified as TAC-post. No clinical or therapeutic amendments were made to the FAC procedures. Subjects in the FAC arm were not given prophylactic antibiotics but received them in addition to G-CSF for all cycles following the first episode of febrile neutropenia.
The G-CSF regimen consisted of rHuG-CSF 1 vial of lenograstim (263 µg/day ) or r-metHuG-CSF 1 vial of filgastrim (300 µg/day) subcutaneously, administered on days 4–10 after chemotherapy.
evaluation of toxicity and HRQoL
A complete blood cell count was mandatory on days 7–10 and 20–21 of each cycle, to ascertain the neutrophil nadir count and neutrophil recovery. Other laboratory toxicities were evaluated on days 20–21 of each cycle. Clinical toxicity was carefully evaluated on day 21. Toxicity was graded using the NCI-CTC version 1.0. The protocol definition of neutropenic fever was fever 38.1°C with grade 4 neutropenia requiring i.v. antibiotics and/or hospitalisation in the same cycle. The incidence of neutropenic fever defined according to NCI-CTC criteria (fever 38.5°C with grade 4 neutropenia) was also recorded and analysed.
HRQoL was self-administered to patients during the 14 days prior to randomisation (baseline), at six prospective time points corresponding to chemotherapy cycles, with the time window (TW) related to each chemotherapy cycle defined as the period between the day following the first chemotherapy dose of the corresponding cycle and the day of the first dose of the following cycle (TW1–TW6), and then at 44, 68 and 120 weeks of the study (TW7–TW9).
The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire–Core 30 (EORTC QLQ–C30) [6] and the breast cancer-specific quality-of-life questionnaire module (QLQ–BR23) [7, 8] were used. The EORTC QLQ–C30 is an international, validated HRQoL questionnaire with robust psychometric properties [6] and consists of five scales (physical, role, emotional, cognitive and social), six single–item scales (dyspnoea, insomnia, appetite loss, constipation, diarrhoea and financial difficulties), three symptom scales (fatigue, nausea and vomiting, and pain) and an overall health-status scale. The QLQ–BR23 module consists of 23 items covering symptoms and side-effects related to different treatment modalities, body image, sexuality, and future perspective, which defines four functional domains or scales (body image, future perspective, sexual enjoyment and sexual functioning) and four symptom domains or scales (arm, breast, hair loss and systematic therapy). In both questionnaires, raw scores range from 0 to 100 and a high score represents a high level of functioning or HRQoL, excluding single–item scales in which high scores represent a high level of symptoms. A difference of 10 points on the scale over baseline value was classified as the minimum clinically meaningful change in both questionnaires [9].
|
results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractintroductionpatients and methodsresultsdiscussionReferences |
|---|
baseline characteristics
During the study recruitment period (July 1999 to December 2001) 1059 female patients were randomised to receive TAC (539) or FAC (520). The trial profile (Figure 1) shows that 1047 of the 1059 patients included in the study and randomised (98.9%) were evaluable for study purposes (528 TAC patients and 519 FAC patients). Of the remaining 12 patients, nine were never treated and three were major treatment protocol violations. Table 1 shows the baseline characteristics of the three groups studied in this publication. Study groups were homogeneous at baseline in terms of EORTC-QLQ30 and BR-23 scores. Since there were no statistically significant differences between patients treated with FAC before and after protocol amendment, the characteristics of both groups are shown together.
|
|
description of G-CSF use and chemotherapy
In the TAC-post group, 362 patients received filgrastim as PPG and the remaining 52 received lenograstim. The baseline characteristics and outcomes of patients who received filgrastim and lenogastrim were not statistically different (data not shown). Therefore, the results of both groups are shown together.
In the TAC-pre group 81 patients (71.1%) had G-CSF (secondary prophylaxis) in 338 cycles. In the FAC group, the respective figures were 54 patients (10.4%) and 184 cycles.
Table 2 shows the compliance with treatment. The percentage of patients treated with TAC who completed six cycles of therapy increased from 90.4% without PPG prophylaxis to 95.7% with G-CSF (P = 0.0194). In spite of this, the median dose intensities of docetaxel, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide were not significantly different in TAC-pre and TAC-post patients.
|
safety data
The toxicities and therapeutic interventions related to myelosuppression in the three groups are shown in Table 3. The percentage of patients who had febrile neutropenia according to protocol definition (fever
38.1°C with grade 4 neutropenia requiring i.v. antibiotics and/or hospitalisation in the same cycle) in one or more cycles was 24.6% and 6.5% in TAC-pre and TAC-post groups, respectively (P = 0.0001). According to the NCI-CTC definition of neutropenic fever, the respective figures were 27.2% and 7.5% (P = 0.0001).
|
Figure 2 shows the distribution of the first episodes of neutropenic fever by cycle in the three arms. In the TAC-pre group, the higher percentage of cycles with neutropenic fever was observed in the first cycle of therapy (12.3% of total number of first cycles).
|
The percentage of patients with grade 2–4 anaemia was higher in the TAC-pre group than in the TAC-post group (47.4 versus 27.5%, P < 0.0001). Similarly, the percentage of patients with grade 2–4 anaemia was higher in the TAC-post group than in the FAC (27.5 versus 7.5%, P < 0.0001). More patients in the TAC-pre group than in the TAC-post group required red cell transfusions (7 versus 2%, P < 0.0102). The difference in red cell transfusion requirements between patients in the TAC-post and FAC groups was not statistically significant.
Interestingly, there was a correlation between the percentage of patients with anaemia grade 2 or greater and the presence of at least one episode of neutropenic fever, in all the three arms (Table 4). For instance, the odds ratio for anaemia grade 2 or greater in patients with versus no neutropenic fever were 3.072 (P = 0.0124, TAC-pre) and 6.06 (P < 0.0001, TAC-post).
|
The incidence of clinically relevant extrahematological toxicities (grade 2–4) that occurred in more than 1% of patients in any group are presented in Table 5. The TAC-post regimen yielded a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of asthenia (P = 0.0025), anorexia (P = 0.001), myalgia (P = 0.0193), nail disorders (P = 0.0012) and stomatitis (P = 0.0101), compared with TAC-pre. No other statistically significant toxicity differences were seen between the two groups. In spite of this improvement, TAC-post patients still had more asthenia, myalgia, diarrhoea and arthralgia (but not anorexia, dysgeusia, nail disorders and stomatitis) than patients treated with FAC.
|
No toxic deaths (septic or non-septic) occurred in this study.
health related quality of life
In general, any chemotherapy treatment deteriorated all HRQoL domains during the treatment period, which was more marked with TAC than with FAC, but this effect completely reversed by week 44. In terms of Global Health Status (GHS) of the EORTC QLQ-C30, statistical significant differences were detected between TAC-pre and FAC (P < 0.01) and TAC-post and FAC (P < 0.05) (Figure 3). The difference between TAC-pre and TAC-post did not reach statistical significance, although there was a trend towards better scores with TAC-post. In order to define further the clinical significance of these differences, Figure 4 shows the percentage of patients with a clinically significant reduction on GHS HRQoL score (10 or more points over baseline) at time windows 3, 6, 7 and 8 (after cycles 3 and 6, and 6- and 12-month follow-ups) After cycle 3, the percentage of patients with a clinically significant GHS decrease was not statistically different between TAC-pre and TAC-post (55% versus 52%), but after cycle 6, the difference reached a statistical significance in favour of TAC-post patients (64% versus 46%, P < 0.03). More TAC-post than FAC patients had significant GCS decline after cycle 3 (52% versus 41%, P < 0.02), but the difference was not statistically significant after cycle 6 (46% versus 40%) or any subsequent follow-up.
|
|
|
discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractintroductionpatients and methodsresultsdiscussionReferences |
|---|
Our report shows the toxicity of the regimens FAC and TAC with and without primary prophylactic G-CSF (PPG). The addition of PPG to TAC significantly reduced the toxicity associated with this regimen, although TAC plus PPG is still more toxic than FAC.
Although not coming from a randomised study, the results of the comparison between TAC and TAC plus PPG are reliable since patient characteristics and treatment were homogeneous during the study (all patients were treated according to the same protocol), primary prophylactic G-CSF being the only relevant independent variable. The use of G-CSF from the first cycle onwards (PPG) reduced the incidence of febrile neutropenia in patients treated with TAC. The reduction was clinically relevant both in terms of percentage of patients who had one or more episodes of febrile neutropenia (24% versus 6.5%) and in terms of percentage of cycles with febrile neutropenia (5.3% versus 1.2%). Guidelines on the use of colony-stimulating factors recommend that they be used in the first cycle of chemotherapy with chemotherapy regimens that are associated with an incidence of febrile neutropenia of 40% [10]. However, more recent economic models suggest that the cost of filgrastim can be offset when the risk of febrile neutropenia is 20%–25% [11], similar to the incidence of TAC-induced febrile neutropenia in our study and in previous studies [3]. Vogel et al. [12] have even advocated the use of colony-stimulating factors for single-agent docetaxel, a drug that produces febrile neutropenia in less than 20% of patients. These authors demonstrated in a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial that primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim reduces the incidence of docetaxel-associated febrile neutropenia from 17% to 1% (P < 0.001). With the relative decrease in the cost of colony-stimulating factors (with respect to the increasing cost of hospitalisation and novel antibiotics), we think that the reduction seen in our study justifies the systematic use of PPG in all patients who are initiating TAC treatment. Avoiding neutropenic fever events, and the associated risk of life-threatening infections, is of particular importance in the adjuvant setting, where many patients can be already cured by local treatment itself. Although the mortality of neutropenic fever is very low today, some toxic deaths due to neutropenic sepsis in breast cancer patients treated with doxorubicin plus docetaxel have recently been reported [13].
PPG improved the compliance with TAC. The percentage of patients who completed six cycles of therapy increased from 90.4% without PPG to 95.7% with it (P = 0.0194). In spite of this, the median dose intensities of docetaxel, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide were not significantly different in TAC-pre and TAC-post patients, probably because G-CSF was administered to 71% of patients in the TAC-pre group as secondary prophylaxis after the first episode of febrile neutropenia, allowing a delivery of full doses of chemotherapy.
One surprising finding of our study was the reduction of grade 2 to 4 anaemia and transfusional requirements associated with the use of PPG. Since G-CSF does not stimulate the erythroid progenitors, an indirect mechanism (i.e. reduction of infections and cytokine release, a well known cause of anemia [14]) could be the reason behind this finding. In support of this hypothesis, we found a clear correlation between anaemia and neutropenic fever in all the three arms. Thus, reducing neutropenic fever events and infections with PPG may be an indirect way of preventing anaemia in TAC-treated patients.
Still more surprising was the reduction seen in some extrahaematological side-effects of TAC. PPG was associated with a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of clinically relevant (i.e. grade 2 or greater) asthenia, anorexia, myalgia, nail disorders and stomatitis compared with secondary prophylactic G-CSF in patients treated with TAC. The mechanism underlying this protective effect is unknown. We speculate that the protection against clinical and subclinical infections associated with PPG could explain the reduction in the incidence of nail changes and stomatitis, disorders in which an infectious component is often involved. Other authors have also found a reduction in the severity of chemotherapy-induced stomatitis with the use of G-CSF [15]. The reduced incidence of clinically relevant asthenia and anorexia could be related to the lower incidence of anaemia in the TAC-post group, which could also be related to the reduction of infection. An alternative or complementary explanation could be the reduction of the release of cytokines associated with the reduction of infections. Cytokines are known to be mediators of both asthenia and anorexia and are released during infections [16]. Figure 4 summarises the hypothetic pathogenic pathways of TAC-induced toxicities.
|
The results of the present study show a HRQoL deterioration in patients during the chemotherapy treatment period that improves once chemotherapy is completed. The deterioration of HRQoL during treatment is obviously due to adverse events associated with chemotherapy and is clearly less marked in the FAC group than in both TAC groups, in which the side-effects are more frequent and severe. The addition of PPG to TAC resulted in a reduction of anaemia and, as in other studies [17
, 18], this can explain the moderate improvement in HRQoL we have described. Although the improvement of Global Health Status score of TAC-post patients did not reach a statistically significant value compared with TAC-pre patients, the percentage of patients with a clinically relevant impairment in HRQoL (reduction of 10 or more points over baseline value) over time was lower with PPG, particularly in the second half of chemotherapy treatment.
Further improvements on QoL of patients treated with TAC are, therefore, necessary. A recent report by von Minckwitz et al. [19] showed that pegfilgrastim (administered on day 2 of each cycle) is superior to filgrastim or lenogastrim (administered on days 5–10 of each cycle) in the prevention of TAC-induced neutropenic fever. Interestingly, in this study pelfisgastrim also reduced the incidence of grade 3–4 stomatitis and diarrhoea compared with daily conventional G-CSF. On the other hand, 27.5% of TAC-treated patients still have grade 2 or greater anaemia in spite of PPG. Reducing this toxicity by means of erythropoietin could translate into an improvement of QoL [20]. A prospective study of QoL in patients treated with adjuvant TAC, pegfilgrastim and dabepoietin is currently ongoing in Spain.
In conclusion, our study shows that PPG reduces the incidence of neutropenic fever and other clinically relevant events (grade 2 or greater anaemia, asthenia, anorexia, myalgia, nail disorders and stomatitis) associated with TAC chemotherapy. PPG also moderately improves the HRQoL of patients treated with TAC. The results of this study support the routine use of PPG in all breast cancer patients treated with adjuvant TAC chemotherapy.
|
Acknowledgements |
|---|
The authors thank the 1059 patients who agreed to participate in this trial and to the following additional investigators who contributed to patient enrolment in this study: B. Munárriz (H. Universitario La Fe, Valencia ), C. Llorca (H. General de Elda, Elda), P. Koralewski (Regional Rydygiera Specialistic H., Kraków), E. Alba (C.H. Virgen de la Victoria, Málaga), C. Jara (Fundación Hospitalaria de Alcorcón, Alcorcón), J. Florián (H. De Barbastro, Barbastro), C. Oberhoff (Universitätsfrauenklinik, Essen), C. Crespo (H. Ramón y Cajal, Madrid), A. Pelegrí (H. Universitario San Juan de Reus, Reus), M. Margelí (H. Universitario Germans Trias i Pujol, Badalona), V. Alberola (H. Arnau de Vilanova, Valencia), J. L. García-Puche (H. Universitario Clínico San Cecilio, Granada), A. Gómez (H. Clínico Universitario de Salamanca, Salamanca), A. Oltra (H. Virgen de los Lirios, Alcoy), I. Álvarez (H. De Donostia, San Sebastián), J. Castellanos (C.H. Xeral-Cíes, Vigo), A. García-Palomo (C.H. de León, León), A. Modollel (Clínica Corachán, Barcelona), E. Aranda (H. Universitario Reina Sofía, Córdoba), R. M. Franquesa (H. General de Vic, Vic), A. Murias (C.H. Materno-Insular, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria), P. Aramburo (H. Ruber Internacional, Madrid), M. Muñoz (H. General Virgen de la Luz, Cuenca), S. Morales (H. Universitario Arnau de Vilanova, Lérida), M. Stamm (St. Marien-Krh, Siegen), A. Fernández (C.H. Universitario de Albacete, Albacete), J. García-Mata (C.H. de Orense, Orense), M. Constenla (C.H. de Pontevedra, Pontevedra), A. Lorenzo (H. Universitario de Puerto Real, Puerto Real), A. Velasco (H. Universitario de la Princesa, Madrid), A. Arizcun (H. General Río Carrión, Palencia), J. M. Baena (H. Universitario Puerta del Mar, Cádiz), L. de Paz (C.H. Arquitecto Marcide, El Ferrol), J. M. Cuevas (H. De La Ribera, Alcira), M. Fernández (C.H. de Jaén, Jaén), F. Melcher (Klinikum Mannheim, Mannheim), M. Navalón (H. Provincial de Zamora, Zamora).
Miguel Martin received a speaker's honoraria from Sanofi-Aventis, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Bristol-Myers Squibb.
The study was presented at ASCO.
Received for publication January 25, 2006. Revision received April 6, 2006. Accepted for publication May 5, 2006.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractintroductionpatients and methodsresultsdiscussionReferences |
|---|
1. Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group. Polychemotherapy for early breast cancer: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet 1998; 352: 30–942.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
2. Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group. Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet 2005; 365: 1687–1717.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
3. Martin M, Pienkowski T, Mackey J et al. Adjuvant docetaxel for node-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2005; 352: 2302–2313.
4. Perez E. TAC—A new standard in adjuvant therapy for breast cancer? N Engl J Med 2005; 352: 2346–2348.
5. Goldhirsch A, Glick JH, Gelber RD, Senn HJ. Meeting highlights: International consensus panel on the treatment of primary breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998; 90: 1601–1608.
6. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B et al. The European Organization for Research and Tretament of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993; 85: 365–376.
7. Sprangers MA, Groenvold M, Arraras JI et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer breast cancer-specific quality-of-life questionnaire module: first results from a three-country field study. J Clin Oncol 1996; 14: 2756–2768.
8. Goodwin PJ, Black JT, Bordeleau LJ et al. Health-related quality-of-life measurement in randomized clinical trials in breast cancer—taking stock. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003; 5:263–281.
9. Osoba D, Rodrigues G, Myles J et al. Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality-of-life scores. J Clin Oncol 1998; 16: 139–144.
10. Ozer H, Armitage JO, Bennet CL et al. 2000 update of recommendations for the use of hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors: Evidence-based, clinical practice guidelines—American Society of Clinical Oncology Growth Factors Expert Panel. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18: 3558–3585.
11. Lyman GH, Kuderer N, Green J et al. The economics of febrile neutropenia: Implications for the use of colony-stimulating factors. Eur J Cancer 1998; 34: 1857–1864.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
12. Vogel CL, Wojtukiewicz MZ, Carroll RR et al. First and subsequent cycle use of pelfisgrastim prevents febrile neutropenia in patients with breast cancer: a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 1178–1184.
13. Brain EGC, Bachelot T, Serin D et al. Life-threatening sepsis associated with adjuvant doxorubicin plus docetaxel for intermediate-risk breast cancer. JAMA 2005; 293: 2367–2371.
14. Schnall SF, Berliner N, Duffy TP et al. Approach to the adult and child with anemia. In Hoffman R, Benz EJ Jr, Shattil SJ et al (eds): Hematology. Basic Principles and Practice. New York, NY: Churchill Livingstone 2000; 367–382.
15. Gabrilove JL, Jakubowski A, Scher H et al. Effect of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor on neutropenia and associated morbidity due to chemotherapy for transitional-cell carcinoma of urothelium. N Engl J Med 1988; 318: 1414–1422.[Abstract]
16. Aggarwal BB, Puri RJ (eds). Human Cytokines: Their Role in Disease and Therapy. Cambridge: Blackwell Science 1995.
17. Holzner B, Kemmler G, Greil R et al. The impact of hemoglobin levels on fatigue and quality of life in cancer patients. Ann Oncol 2002; 3: 965–3973.
18. Lind M, Vernon C, Crickshank D et al. The level of hemoglobin in anaemic cancer patients correlates positively with quality of life. Br J Cancer 2002; 86: 1243–1249.
19. von Minckwitz G, Blohmer J, Loehr A et al. Pegfilgastrim alone or with ciproflaxin significantly reduces febrile neutropenia and hospitalization vs G-CSF alone in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy with docetaxel/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (TAC). Eur J Cancer 2006; 4 (Suppl 2): 151–152.
20. Gabrilove J. Overview: Erythropoiesis, anemia and the impact of erythropoietin. Sem Hematol 2000; 37 (Suppl 4): 1–3.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  E. J. Ip, A. Lee-Ma, L. S. Troxell, and J. Chan Low-dose filgrastim in patients with breast cancer treated with docetaxel, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm., August 15, 2008; 65(16): 1552 - 1555. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. E. Wolowacz, D. A. Cameron, H. C. Tate, and A. Bagust Docetaxel in Combination With Doxorubicin and Cyclophosphamide As Adjuvant Treatment for Early Node-Positive Breast Cancer: A Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Utility Analysis J. Clin. Oncol., February 20, 2008; 26(6): 925 - 933. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L.-P. P. Tran and J. L. Grabinski Chemotherapy for Early-Stage Breast Cancer: A Paradigm in Flux Journal of Pharmacy Practice, February 1, 2008; 21(1): 46 - 56. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 G. von Minckwitz, S. Kummel, A. du Bois, W. Eiermann, H. Eidtmann, B. Gerber, J. Hilfrich, J. Huober, S. D. Costa, C. Jackisch, et al. Pegfilgrastim {+/-} ciprofloxacin for primary prophylaxis with TAC (docetaxel/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide) chemotherapy for breast cancer. Results from the GEPARTRIO study Ann. Onc., February 1, 2008; 19(2): 292 - 298. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J Alexandre, E Rey, V Girre, S Grabar, A Tran, V Montheil, F Rabillon, V Dieras, V Jullien, P Herait, et al. Relationship between cytochrome 3A activity, inflammatory status and the risk of docetaxel-induced febrile neutropenia: a prospective study Ann. Onc., January 1, 2007; 18(1): 168 - 172. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. S. Hupperets and V. C. Tjan-Heijnen Primary or secondary G-CSF prophylaxis to support TAC chemotherapy in breast cancer? Ann. Onc., August 1, 2006; 17(8): 1181 - 1183. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||