Dose-dense adjuvant chemotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the Japanese Breast Cancer Society Clinical Practice Guideline, 2018 edition.
Adjuvant
Breast cancer
Dose-dense chemotherapy
Meta-analysis
Systematic review
Journal
Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan)
ISSN: 1880-4233
Titre abrégé: Breast Cancer
Pays: Japan
ID NLM: 100888201
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2020
May 2020
Historique:
received:
22
10
2019
accepted:
19
12
2019
pubmed:
10
1
2020
medline:
3
2
2021
entrez:
10
1
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Increasing the dose intensity of cytotoxic therapy by shortening the intervals between cycles may enhance efficacy. Dose-dense chemotherapy, which is adopted as adjuvant chemotherapy of high-risk breast cancer, is addressed in the Japanese Breast Cancer Society Clinical Practice Guideline for breast cancer, 2018 edition (in Japanese). To evaluate the benefits and safety of dose-dense adjuvant chemotherapy described in the guideline, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of data of randomized trials using the same drugs, doses, and numbers of cycles. The PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Ichushi-Web databases were searched for relevant publications reporting randomized trials published until November 2016. Overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and toxicity were assessed. Three trials comprising 5190 patients were included. Compared with conventional chemotherapy, dose-dense chemotherapy lengthened OS (RR = 0.76; 95% CI = 0.64-0.90) and DFS (RR = 0.83; 95% CI = 0.75-0.92) and increased the risk of anemia (RR = 4.56; 95% CI = 2.01-10.34). We conclude that dose-dense chemotherapy can be highly recommended as adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with breast cancer with a high risk of recurrence risk and sufficient bone marrow function.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31916188
doi: 10.1007/s12282-019-01039-1
pii: 10.1007/s12282-019-01039-1
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
334-339Références
Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG), Peto R, Davies C, Godwin J, Gray R, et al. Comparisons between different polychemotherapy regimens for early breast cancer: meta-analyses of long-term outcome among 100,000 women in 123 randomised trials. Lancet. 2012;379:432–44.
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61625-5
Norton L, Simon R. Tumor size, sensitivity to therapy, and design of treatment schedules. Cancer Treat Rep. 1977;61:1307–17.
pubmed: 589597
Norton LA. A Gompertzian model of human breast cancer growth. Cancer Res. 1988;48(24, pt 1):7067.
pubmed: 3191483
Del Mastro L, De Placido S, Bruzzi P, De Laurentiis M, Boni C, et al. Fluorouracil and dose-dense chemotherapy in adjuvant treatment of patients with early-stage breast cancer: an open-label, 2 × 2 factorial, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2015;385:1863–72.
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62048-1
Venturini M, Del Mastro L, Aitini E, Baldini E, Caroti C, et al. Dose-dense adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer patients: results from a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:1724–33.
doi: 10.1093/jnci/dji398
Citron ML, Berry DA, Cirrincione C, Hudis C, Winer EP, et al. Randomized trial of dose-dense versus conventionally scheduled and sequential versus concurrent combination chemotherapy as postoperative adjuvant treatment of node-positive primary breast cancer: first report of Intergroup Trial C9741/Cancer and Leukemia Group B Trial 9741. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:1431–9.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2003.09.081
Foukakis T, von Minckwitz G, Bengtsson NO, Brandberg Y, Wallberg B, et al. Effect of tailored dose-dense chemotherapy vs standard 3-weekly adjuvant chemotherapy on recurrence-free survival among women with high-risk early breast cancer: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2016;316:1888–96.
doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.15865
Burnell M, Levine MN, Chapman JA, Bramwell V, Gelmon K, et al. Cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and fluorouracil versus dose-dense epirubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel versus doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel in node-positive or high-risk node-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:77–82.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.22.1077
Therasse P, Mauriac L, Welnicka-Jaskiewicz M, Bruning P, Cufer T, et al. Final results of a randomized phase III trial comparing cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and fluorouracil with a dose-intensified epirubicin and cyclophosphamide + filgrastim as neoadjuvant treatment in locally advanced breast cancer: an EORTC-NCIC-SAKK multicenter study. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:843–50.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2003.05.135
von Minckwitz G, Raab G, Caputo A, Schütte M, Hilfrich J, et al. Doxorubicin with cyclophosphamide followed by docetaxel every 21 days compared with doxorubicin and docetaxel every 14 days as preoperative treatment in operable breast cancer: the GEPARDUO study of the German Breast Group. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:2676–85.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.05.078
Kojimahara N, Nakayama T, Morizane T, Yamaguchi N, Yoshida M. Minds manual for guideline development. Ver. 2.0. Tokyo: Japan Council for Quality Health Care; 2016.
Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, Bouter LM, Kristjansson E, et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:1013–20.
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.009
Bonilla L, Ben-Aharon I, Vidal L, Gafter-Gvili A, Leibovici L, et al. Dose-dense chemotherapy in nonmetastatic breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102:1845–54.
doi: 10.1093/jnci/djq409