4.7 Article

Patients with Slowly Proliferative Early Breast Cancer Have Low Five-Year Recurrence Rates in a Phase III Adjuvant Trial of Capecitabine

Journal

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
Volume 21, Issue 19, Pages 4305-4311

Publisher

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-0636

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc.

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: We conducted a randomized phase III study to determine whether patients with early breast cancer would benefit from the addition of capecitabine (X) to a standard regimen of doxorubicin (A) plus cyclophosphamide (C) followed by docetaxel (T). Experimental Design: Treatment comprised eight cycles of AC -> T (T dose: 100 mg/m(2) on day 1) or AC -> T (X dose: 825 mg/m(2) twice daily, days 1-14; T dose: 75 mg/m(2) on day 1). The primary endpoint was 5-year disease-free survival (DFS). Results: Of 2,611 women, 1,304 were randomly assigned to receive AC -> T and 1,307 to receive AC -> T. After a median follow-up of 5 years, the study failed to meet its primary endpoint [HR, 0.84; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.67-1.05; P = 0.125]. A significant improvement in overall survival, a secondary endpoint, was seen with AC -> T versus AC -> T (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.51-0.92; P = 0.011). There were no unexpected adverse events. Of patients with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive/HER2-negative disease, 70% of whom were node-positive, 26% and 59% had tumors with a centrally assessed Ki-67 score of <10% or <20%, respectively, and only 17 (2%) and 53 (6%) DFS events, respectively, occurred in these groups at 7 years. Conclusions: The very low event rate in patients with ERpositive, low Ki-67 cancers, regardless of nodal status, strongly suggests that these patients should not be enrolled in adjuvant trials that assess 5-year DFS rates and that central Ki-67 analyses can identify these patients. (C) 2015 AACR.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available