Ultrasound is at least as good as magnetic resonance imaging in predicting tumour size post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of clinical imaging of the primary breast tumour post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) related to the post-neoadjuvant histological tumour size (gold standard) and whether this varies with breast cancer subtype. In this study, results of both magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound (US) were reported. Methods: Patients with invasive breast cancer were enrolled in the INTENS study between 2006 and 2009. We included 182 patients, of whom data were available for post-NAC MRI (n = 155), US (n = 123), and histopathological tumour size. Results: MRI estimated residual tumour size with <10-mm discordance in 54% of patients, overestimated size in 28% and underestimated size in 18% of patients. With US, this was 63%, 20% and 17%, respectively. The negative predictive value in hormone receptor-positive tumours for both MRI and US was low, 26% and 33%, respectively. The median deviation in clinical tumour size as percentage of pathological tumour was 63% (P25 = 26, P75 = 100) and 49% (P25 = 22, P75 = 100) for MRI and US, respectively (P = 0.06). Conclusions: In this study, US was at least as good as breast MRI in providing information on residual tumour size post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy. However, both modalities suffered from a substantial percentage of over- and underestimation of tumour size and in addition both showed a low negative predictive value of pathologic complete remission (Gov nr: NCT00314977)

Ultrasound is at least as good as magnetic resonance imaging in predicting tumour size post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer

Item does not contain fulltextBACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of clinical imaging of the primary breast tumour post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) related to the post-neoadjuvant histological tumour size (gold standard) and whether this varies with breast cancer subtype. In this study, results of both magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound (US) were reported. METHODS: Patients with invasive breast cancer were enrolled in the INTENS study between 2006 and 2009. We included 182 patients, of whom data were available for post-NAC MRI (n=155), US (n=123), and histopathological tumour size. RESULTS: MRI estimated residual tumour size with <10-mm discordance in 54% of patients, overestimated size in 28% and underestimated size in 18% of patients. With US, this was 63%, 20% and 17%, respectively. The negative predictive value in hormone receptor-positive tumours for both MRI and US was low, 26% and 33%, respectively. The median deviation in clinical tumour size as percentage of pathological tumour was 63% (P25=26, P75=100) and 49% (P25=22, P75=100) for MRI and US, respectively (P=0.06). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, US was at least as good as breast MRI in providing information on residual tumour size post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy. However, both modalities suffered from a substantial percentage of over- and underestimation of tumour size and in addition both showed a low negative predictive value of pathologic complete remission (Gov nr: NCT00314977)

Primary Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor Prophylaxis During the First Two Cycles Only or Throughout All Chemotherapy Cycles in Patients With Breast Cancer at Risk for Febrile Neutropenia

Purpose Early breast cancer is commonly treated with anthracyclines and taxanes. However, combining these drugs increases the risk of myelotoxicity and may require granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) support. The highest incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) and largest benefit of G-CSF during the first cycles of chemotherapy lead to questions about the effectiveness of continued use of G-CSF throughout later cycles of chemotherapy. Patients and Methods In a multicenter study, patients with breast cancer who were considered fit enough to receive 3-weekly polychemotherapy, but also had > 20% risk for FN, were randomly assigned to primary G-CSF prophylaxis during the first two chemotherapy cycles only (experimental arm) or to primary G-CSF prophylaxis throughout all chemotherapy cycles (standard arm). The noninferiority hypothesis was that the incidence of FN would be maximally 7.5% higher in the experimental compared with the standard arm. Results After inclusion of 167 eligible patients, the independent data monitoring committee advised premature study closure. Of 84 patients randomly assigned to G-CSF throughout all chemotherapy cycles, eight (10%) experienced an episode of FN. In contrast, of 83 patients randomly assigned to G-CSF during the first two cycles only, 30 (36%) had an FN episode (95% CI, 0.13 to 0.54), with a peak incidence of 24% in the third cycle (ie, first cycle without G-CSF prophylaxis). Conclusion In patients with early breast cancer at high risk for FN, continued use of primary G-CSF prophylaxis during all chemotherapy cycles is of clinical relevance and thus cannot be abandoned

Cost effectiveness of primary pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in patients with breast cancer at risk of febrile neutropenia

Item does not contain fulltextPURPOSE: Guidelines advise primary granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) prophylaxis during chemotherapy if risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) is more than 20%, but this comes with considerable costs. We investigated the incremental costs and effects between two treatment strategies of primary pegfilgrastim prophylaxis. METHODS: Our economic evaluation used a health care perspective and was based on a randomized study in patients with breast cancer with increased risk of FN, comparing primary G-CSF prophylaxis throughout all chemotherapy cycles (G-CSF 1-6 cycles) with prophylaxis during the first two cycles only (G-CSF 1-2 cycles). Primary outcome was cost effectiveness expressed as costs per patient with episodes of FN prevented. RESULTS: The incidence of FN increased from 10% in the G-CSF 1 to 6 cycles study arm (eight of 84 patients) to 36% in the G-CSF 1 to 2 cycles study arm (30 of 83 patients), whereas the mean total costs decreased from euro 20,658 (95% CI, euro 20,049 to euro 21,247) to euro 17,168 (95% CI euro 16,239 to euro 18,029) per patient, respectively. Chemotherapy and G-CSF determined 80% of the total costs. As expected, FN-related costs were higher in the G-CSF 1 to 2 cycles arm. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio for the G-CSF 1 to 6 cycles arm compared with the G-CSF 1 to 2 cycles arm was euro 13,112 per patient with episodes of FN prevented. CONCLUSION: We conclude that G-CSF prophylaxis throughout all chemotherapy cycles is more effective, but more costly, compared with prophylaxis limited to the first two cycles. Whether G-CSF prophylaxis throughout all chemotherapy cycles is considered cost effective depends on the willingness to pay per patient with episodes of FN prevented

Primary granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis during the first two cycles only or throughout all chemotherapy cycles in patients with breast cancer at risk for febrile neutropenia

Item does not contain fulltextPURPOSE: Early breast cancer is commonly treated with anthracyclines and taxanes. However, combining these drugs increases the risk of myelotoxicity and may require granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) support. The highest incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) and largest benefit of G-CSF during the first cycles of chemotherapy lead to questions about the effectiveness of continued use of G-CSF throughout later cycles of chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a multicenter study, patients with breast cancer who were considered fit enough to receive 3-weekly polychemotherapy, but also had > 20% risk for FN, were randomly assigned to primary G-CSF prophylaxis during the first two chemotherapy cycles only (experimental arm) or to primary G-CSF prophylaxis throughout all chemotherapy cycles (standard arm). The noninferiority hypothesis was that the incidence of FN would be maximally 7.5% higher in the experimental compared with the standard arm. RESULTS: After inclusion of 167 eligible patients, the independent data monitoring committee advised premature study closure. Of 84 patients randomly assigned to G-CSF throughout all chemotherapy cycles, eight (10%) experienced an episode of FN. In contrast, of 83 patients randomly assigned to G-CSF during the first two cycles only, 30 (36%) had an FN episode (95% CI, 0.13 to 0.54), with a peak incidence of 24% in the third cycle (ie, first cycle without G-CSF prophylaxis). CONCLUSION: In patients with early breast cancer at high risk for FN, continued use of primary G-CSF prophylaxis during all chemotherapy cycles is of clinical relevance and thus cannot be abandoned

Addition of zoledronic acid to neoadjuvant chemotherapy is not beneficial in patients with HER2-negative stage II/III breast cancer: 5-year survival analysis of the NEOZOTAC trial (BOOG 2010-01)

Background: Adjuvant bisphosphonates are associated with improved breast cancer survival in postmenopausal patients. Addition of zoledronic acid (ZA) to neoadjuvant chemotherapy did not improve pathological complete response in the phase III NEOZOTAC trial. Here we report the results of the secondary endpoints, disease-free survival, (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Patients and methods: Patients with HER2-negative, stage II/III breast cancer were randomized to receive the standard 6 cycles of neoadjuvant TAC (docetaxel/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide) chemotherapy with or without 4 mg intravenous (IV) ZA administered within 24 h of chemotherapy. This was repeated every 21 days for 6 cycles. Cox regression models were used to evaluate the effect of ZA and covariates on DFS and OS. Regression models were used to examine the association between insulin, glucose, insulin growth factor-1 (IGF-1) levels, and IGF-1 receptor (IGF-1R) expression with survival outcomes. Results: Two hundred forty-six women were eligible for inclusion. After a median follow-up of 6.4 years, OS for all patients was significantly worse for those who received ZA (HR 0.468, 95% CI 0.226-0.967, P = 0.040). DFS was not significantly different between the treatment arms (HR 0.656, 95% CI 0.371-1.160, P = 0.147). In a subgroup analysis of postmenopausal women, no significant difference in DFS or OS was found for those who received ZA compared with the control group (HR 0.464, 95% CI 0.176-1.222, P = 0.120; HR 0.539, 95% CI 0.228-1.273, P = 0.159, respectively). The subgroup analysis of premenopausal patients was not significantly different for DFS and OS ((HR 0.798, 95% CI 0.369-1.725, P = 0.565; HR 0.456, 95% CI 0.156-1.336, P = 0.152, respectively). Baseline IGF-1R expression was not significantly associated with DFS or OS. In a predefined additional study, lower serum levels of insulin were associated with improved DFS (HR 1.025, 95% CI 1.005-1.045, P = 0.014). Conclusions: Our results suggest that ZA in combination with neoadjuvant chemotherapy was associated with a worse OS in breast cancer (both pre- and postmenopausal patients). However, in a subgroup analysis of postmenopausal patients, ZA treatment was not associated with DFS or OS. Also, DFS was not significantly different between both groups. IGF-1R expression in tumor tissue before and after neoadjuvant treatment did not predict survival