1The Royal Marsden NHS Trust, London; 2Guys and St Thomass NHS Trust, London, UK
Received 26 March 2001; revised 10 December 2001; accepted 9 January 2002.
![]() |
Abstract |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) allows cycles of conventional bolus chemotherapy to be accelerated with reduction in treatment time and a boost in dose intensity. Theoretically, this approach could be hazardous with infusional 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) chemotherapy, since G-CSF-stimulated neutrophil proliferation would be occurring in the face of continuous S-phase active 5-FU. We performed this phase II randomised study to compare the safety, tolerability and efficacy of conventional 3-weekly epirubicin, cyclophosphamide and continuous infusional 5-FU (infusional ECF) to an accelerated 2-weekly schedule with G-CSF support, in patients with advanced breast cancer.
Patients and methods
Twenty-seven patients were randomised, with 14 in the accelerated arm. Patients received bolus epirubicin 60 mg/m2 and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2 every 3 weeks (conventional arm) or every 2 weeks (accelerated arm) and 5-FU 200 mg/m2/day continuous infusion throughout. G-CSF 300 µg/day s.c. on days 1012 was given each accelerated cycle.
Results
There were no treatment delays secondary to inadequate neutrophil or platelet recovery in either arm, with higher median day 1 neutrophil counts for each cycle in the accelerated arm compared with the conventional arm. Eighty-six per cent of the planned conventional chemotherapy cycles and 82% of the planned accelerated cycles were given. There were no major differences in toxicity between the arms, with the most common grade 3 toxicities being alopecia and stomatitis. Eight patients developed neutropenic sepsis (five in the accelerated arm and three in the conventional arm). Ten patients (77%) responded in the conventional arm and nine (64%) in the accelerated arm.
Conclusions
Accelerated infusional ECF with limited G-CSF support is a feasible and well-tolerated regimen with rapid haematological recovery. A 50% increase in relative dose intensity of epirubicin and cyclophosphamide is achieved, while overall treatment time is reduced by 33%.
Key words: accelerated, breast cancer, cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, 5-fluorouracil, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor
![]() |
Introduction |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
With this in mind, we conducted this phase II randomised study to determine the safety, tolerability and effectiveness of an accelerated infusional ECF schedule in patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer.
![]() |
Patients and methods |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Methods
Initial work-up included full history and physical examination, with two-dimensional tumour measurement in patients with locally advanced/inflammatory disease, full blood count, plasma urea and electrolytes, liver function tests, 12-lead electrocardiogram, chest X-ray, isotopic bone scans and liver imaging [ultrasound or computed tomography (CT) scan]. Further CT/magnetic resonance imaging scanning was only performed if there was a clinical or biochemical suspicion of metastatic disease at other sites. All patients had a multiple gated acquisition scan to assess left ventricular function.
Treatment
The conventional epirubicin, cyclophosphamide and continuous infusional 5-FU (infusional ECF) chemotherapy schedule consisted of a continuous infusion of 5-FU administered at a dose of 200 mg/m2 every 24 h via an ambulatory infumed pump and a Hickman line inserted into a subclavian vein for a planned 18 weeks. This was combined with bolus intravenous injections of epirubicin (60 mg/m2) and cyclophosphamide (600 mg/m2), given once every 3 weeks for a planned six courses.
The accelerated infusional ECF chemotherapy schedule consisted of a continuous infusion of 5-FU administered at a dose of 200 mg/m2 every 24 h as described above, for a planned 12 weeks. This was combined with bolus epirubicin (60 mg/m2) and cyclophosphamide (600 mg/m2) as described above, given once every 2 weeks for a planned six courses.
Antiemetic cover was provided with either ondansetron 8 mg i.v. or granisetron 3 mg i.v. combined with dexamethasone 8 mg i.v., followed by 3 days of oral dexamethasone 4 mg three times daily and domperidone 20 mg four times daily. Scalp cooling was offered with each course of epirubicin. All patients were treated with low dose warfarin (1 mg/day) to prevent Hickman line-related thrombosis. G-CSF was given subcutaneously at a dose of 300 µg/day on days 1012 to all patients in the accelerated arm. Longer schedules of G-CSF were allowed if deemed necessary for patient safety by the treating physician.
Assessment of response and toxicity
Patients were assessed clinically every cycle with bidimensional tumour measurements. Overall response rates to chemotherapy were determined using standard WHO criteria [16]. Toxicity for each cycle was recorded prior to the commencement of the following cycle and was also assessed using the standard WHO criteria [16]. Nadir blood counts were not routinely taken in patients receiving conventional ECF.
Dose intensity calculation
Dose intensity was calculated for individual patients for all received treatment, expressed for each drug in mg/m2/week.
Dose modifications
Dose modifications were made for toxicity as follows.
Myelosuppression
If the total neutrophil count was <1.0 x 109/l and/or the platelet count was <100 x 109/l, the 5-FU was continued but the epirubicin and the cyclophosphamide were delayed for a week. If longer delays were required, then dose reductions of all drugs occurred.
Palmar-plantar syndrome
Pyridoxine 50 mg orally three times per day was started if symptoms were mild, and 5-FU infusion was discontinued if symptoms were more severe. Upon healing, 5-FU infusion was recommenced with a 25% dose reduction.
Diarrhoea
For severe/persistent diarrhoea, 5-FU was discontinued for 1 week and restarted with a 25% dose reduction.
End points and statistical considerations
It was planned to use a two stage Flemings phase II design [17]. In the first stage, toxicity levels were assessed after 10 patients had been treated in the accelerated arm. Myelosuppression of grade 2 or higher in 90% of patients was deemed unacceptable and the trial was assessed after 10 patients so that it could be stopped early if such high levels of toxicity were seen. If all 10 patients showed grade 2 myelosuppression then the study would be discontinued. In the second stage, randomisation was planned to continue until a further 510 patients had been treated on each arm. A one-to-one randomisation was done using a permuted block design (block size 10). Then, if 10 or more patients on the accelerated arm showed tolerable levels of myelosuppression (grade
1), consideration would be given to expanding to a full phase III trial (
= 4%; power = 95%).
![]() |
Results |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
|
Toxicity
Haematological
Haematological toxicity is shown in Table 2. This demonstrates the positive impact of G-CSF on haematological recovery. Despite day 1 in the accelerated arm being 7 days earlier than day 1 in the conventional arm, the median neutrophil counts were consistently higher in patients receiving accelerated treatment plus G-CSF. Neutrophil counts of up to 21.3 x 109/l were seen, and the impact of G-CSF did not appear to diminish as the patients progressed through the treatment cycles, with median levels remaining high throughout. There was no major difference between the two treatment arms in the number of patients developing neutropenic sepsis (five patients in the accelerated arm versus three in the conventional arm) although the overall rate of eight of 27 (30%) appeared high. The five patients in the accelerated arm developed neutropenic sepsis between days 8 and 11 post-chemotherapy in cycles 1, 2, 2, 4 and 5, respectively. All were admitted to hospital for intravenous antibiotics and stayed for a median of 3.5 days (range 25 days). The median length of neutropenia was 2.5 days (range 14 days). The three patients in the conventional arm developed neutropenic sepsis on day 10 cycle 1, day 11 cycle 1 and day 16 cycle 5, respectively. All were admitted to hospital for intravenous antibiotics and stayed for 23 days with neutrophil recovery occurring within 12 days.
|
Non-haematological
The major non-haematological toxicities experienced by patients in each treatment arm are summarised in Table 3. In general, both schedules were well tolerated, with no WHO grade 4 toxicities experienced.
|
The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of each patient was recorded on the first day of each cycle. The majority of the patients in both arms had either stable or improved performance status during their treatment. Only three patients suffered a deterioration, and of these two were temporary, being associated with an acute toxicity.
The median time to progression was similar in the two groups [12 months (range 138) in the conventional arm and 10.6 months (range 125) in the accelerated arm], as was the median overall survival [18.3 months (range 141) and 19.3 months (range 338), respectively]. Still alive at the time of analysis were two patients in the conventional arm (at 28 and 40 months follow-up) and three in the accelerated arm (at 20, 25 and 32 months follow-up).
![]() |
Discussion |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
The 3-day schedule of G-CSF administration (from days 10 to 12) was empirically chosen, based upon local experience and cost considerations. Although standard schedules of G-CSF administration often begin on the first day post-chemotherapy and continue for up to 10 days, the data supporting such prolonged schedules in patients with solid tumours receiving standard doses of chemotherapy is weak. Papaldo et al. [18] reported a randomised study of accelerated chemotherapy in advanced breast cancer with patients receiving G-CSF either from days 3 to 7, or from days 3 to 12. Although there were only 22 patients in the study, there was no difference in haematological toxicity between the two arms. Four of 14 patients in our accelerated arm received a longer schedule of G-CSF (one for a single cycle and three for multiple cycles). Nevertheless, the majority of patients had excellent neutrophil recovery with 3 days of administration. This shorter schedule of G-CSF has advantages in terms of both cost and simplification of treatment. Of note, a total of eight patients developed febrile neutropenia during study treatment. These patients required hospitalisation and treatment with intravenous antibiotics. The patients were equally distributed between the two treatment groups (five in the accelerated arm versus three in the conventional arm), with two of the patients in the accelerated arm having open wounds at the time of randomisation (one had a large fungating untreated breast lesion, and one had an open excisional breast biopsy site). It is uncertain whether a longer schedule of G-CSF administration would have decreased the incidence of febrile neutropenia. Non-haematological treatment toxicities were largely as predicted, with both arms well tolerated by the majority of patients.
There were five clinical complete remissions seen in the accelerated arm (36%) versus two in the standard arm (15%). These findings are consistent with previous studies of accelerated treatment which found high rates of complete clinical remissions, ranging up to 30% of patients treated [1, 6, 19, 20]. However, the small total number of patients studied makes it impossible to determine whether the 48% increase in the relative dose intensity of epirubicin and cyclophosphamide results in an increase in response rate or in improved survival outcomes.
Although important, improved disease outcomes are only one aim of accelerated therapy. Another consideration is the shortened treatment time they offer, thus reducing the impact of treatment on the lives of the patients. In this study, palliative therapy could be administered over a 12-week period rather than over 18 weeks, a reduction of 33% in treatment time. Whether this in itself makes accelerated treatment worthwhile is a value judgement, particularly in view of the extra cost involved with the use of G-CSF and the slight increase in grade 3 toxicities and febrile neutropenia rate. In addition, it remains unclear whether shorter treatment schedules per se may have a detrimental impact upon treatment outcomes in the metastatic setting.
This study has demonstrated that accelerated infusional ECF chemotherapy is feasible and tolerable in patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. Acceleration of infusional ECF increases RDI by up to 50% whilst reducing treatment time by 33%. The development of oral 5-FU agents such as eniluracil [21] and capecitabine [22] in the management of advanced breast cancer raises the possibility of replacing the infusional component of the treatment schedule with daily oral dosing, therefore eliminating the need for invasive catheters and pumps. A larger phase III study is required to determine fully the potential benefits of this regimen.
![]() |
Footnotes |
---|
![]() |
References |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
2. Bissett D, Jodrell D, Harnett AN et al. Phase I study of accelerated FEC with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (Lenograstim) support. Br J Cancer 1995; 71: 12791282.[ISI][Medline]
3. Piccart MJ, Bruning P, Wilders J et al. An EORTC pilot study of filgrastim (recombinant human granulocyte colony stimulating factor) as support to a high dose-intensive epiadriamycin-cyclophosphamide regimen in chemotherapy-naïve patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol 1995; 6: 673677.[Abstract]
4. Scinto AF, Ferraresi V, Campioni N et al. Accelerated chemotherapy with high-dose epirubicin and cyclophosphamide plus r-met-HUG-CSF in locally advanced and metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol 1995; 6: 665671.[Abstract]
5. Lalisang RI, Wils JA, Nortier HW et al. Comparative study of dose escalation versus interval reduction to obtain dose-intensification of epirubicin and cyclophosphamide with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1997; 15: 13671376.[Abstract]
6. Nistico C, Garufi C, Barni S et al. Phase II study of epirubicin and vinorelbine with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor: a high-activity, dose-dense weekly regimen for advanced breast cancer. Ann Oncol 1999; 10: 937942.[Abstract]
7. Cottu PH, Zelek L, Extra JM et al. High-dose epirubicin and cyclophosphamide every two weeks as first-line chemotherapy for relapsing metastatic breast cancer patients. Ann Oncol 1999; 10: 795801.[Abstract]
8. Del Mastro L, Garrone O, Sertoli MR et al. A pilot study of accelerated cyclophosphamide, epirubicin and 5-fluorouracil plus granulocyte colony stimulating factor as adjuvant therapy in early breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 1994; 30A: 606610.
9. Lorusso V, Catino A, Schittulli F et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with accelerated CNF plus G-CSF in patients with breast cancer tumours larger than three centimetres: A pilot study. Int J Oncol 1998; 12: 11771181.[ISI][Medline]
10.
Fountazilias G, Nicolaides C, Aravantinos G et al. Dose-dense adjuvant chemotherapy with epirubicin monotherapy in patients with operable breast cancer and 10 positive axillary lymph nodes. A feasibility study. Oncology 1998; 55: 508512.[ISI][Medline]
11. Jones AL, Smith IE, OBrien MER et al. Phase II study of continuous infusional 5-FU with epirubicin and cisplatin (infusional ECF) in patients with metastatic and locally advanced breast cancer: An active new regimen. J Clin Oncol 1994; 12: 12591265.[Abstract]
12. de Boer RH, Saini A, Johnston SRD et al. Continuous infusional combination chemotherapy in inflammatory breast cancer: A phase II study. Breast J 2000; 9: 149155.
13. Smith IE, Walsh G, Jones A et al. High complete remission rates with primary neoadjuvant chemotherapy for large early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1995; 13: 424429.[Abstract]
14. Molineux G, Dexter TM. Biology of G-CSF. In Morstyn G, Dexter TM (eds): Filgrastim in Clinical Practice. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker 1994; 123.
15.
De Wit R, Verweij J, Bontenbal M et al. Adverse effect on bone marrow protection of pre-chemotherapy granulocyte colony-stimulating factor support. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996; 88: 13931398.
16. Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Straquet M, Winkler A. Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer 1981; 147: 207214.
17. Fleming TR. One sample multiple testing procedure for phase II clinical trials. Biometrics 1982; 38: 143151.[ISI][Medline]
18. Papaldo P, Marolla P, Pellegrini F, Calabresi F. Accelerated chemotherapy (CT) with two schedules of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in advanced breast cancer. Ann Oncol 1992; 3 (Suppl 5): 7.
19. Ries F, Duhem C, Kleiber K, Dicato M. Phase I/II clinical trial of epirubicin and paclitaxel followed by granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in a 2-week schedule in patients with advanced or metastatic breast cancer. Semin Oncol 1997; 24: (Suppl 17): 4851.[ISI]
20. Stoger H, Sammonigg H, Krainer M et al. Dose intensification of epidoxorubicin and cyclophosphamide in metastatic breast cancer: a randomised study with two schedules of granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor. Eur J Cancer 1998; 34: 482488.[ISI][Medline]
21.
Smith IE, Johnson SRD, OBrien MER et al. Low-dose fluorouracil with eniluracil as first-line chemotherapy against advanced breast cancer: a phase II study. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18: 23782384.
22.
Blum JC, Jones SE, Buzdar AU et al. Multicentre phase II study of capecitabine in paclitaxel-refractory metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17: 485493.