Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Efficacy of taxanes as adjuvant treatment of breast cancer: a review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials

  • Research Articles
  • Published:
Clinical and Translational Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate the magnitude of benefit obtained by taxanes as adjuvant treatment of breast cancer and to assess the best method for their administration.

Material and methods

We performed a systematic search of phase III randomised clinical trials that included patients with non-metastatic breast cancer in whom comparisons were chemotherapy (CT) containing a taxane (docetaxel or paclitaxel) vs. CT without taxanes (first-generation trials), or CT with taxane in both treatment arms (second-generation trials), administered after surgery. The parameters of efficacy evaluated were disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). The data obtained in the first-generation trials (number of relapses and deaths) were submitted to a meta-analysis. The odds ratio (OR) combined with DerSimonian and Laird (OR DL) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) were calculated. Further, an analysis was performed of those trials that included only patients with nodal involvement (N+). In both cases, the results were also analysed as a function of the taxane used, and with indirect comparisons between the two. The second-generation trials were analysed to assess the optimum method of administration.

Results

A total of 17 trials were selected for the metaanalysis (30,672 patients). The OR DL was 0.82 (95%CI: 0.76=2–0.88) for DFS and 0.83 (95%CI: 0.75–0.91) for OS. In N+ patients the results were 0.80 (95%CI: 0.74–0.86) and 0.79 (95%CI: 0.69–0.89), respectively. Docetaxel and paclitaxel significantly increased the DFS and OS. In our indirect comparison, the benefit of docetaxel on OS was significantly superior to that obtained with paclitaxel in N+ patients (OR: 0.79; 95%CI: 0.63–0.98).

Conclusions

The administration of adjuvant CT-based taxanes reduces the risk of relapse and death. This reduction is superior in clinical trials that included only N+ patients. With the available evidence, it would appear that the best method of administering paclitaxel is weekly and for docetaxel tri-weekly.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mondial International Agency for Research on Cancer (World Health Organization), Lyon. Available at: www-dep.iarc.fr/

  2. Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG) (2005) Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet 365:1687–1717

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bonadonna G, Moliterni A, Zambetti M et al (2005) 30 years’ follow up of randomised studies of adjuvant CMF in operable breast cancer: cohort study. BMJ 330:217–220

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bria E, Nistico C, Cuppone F et al (2006) Benefits of taxanes as adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer: pooled analysis of 15,500 patients. Cancer 106:2337–2344

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Ferguson T, Wilcken N, Vagg R et al (2007) Taxanes for adjuvant treatment of early cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD004421

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. De Laurentiis M, Cancello G, D’Agostino D et al (2008) Taxane-based combinations as adjuvant chemotherapy of early breast cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Clin Oncol 26:44–53

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Buzdar AU, Singletary SE, Valero V et al (2002) Evaluation of paclitaxel in adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with operable breast cancer: preliminary data of a prospective randomized trial. Clin Cancer Res 8:1073–1079

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Gianni L, Baselga J, Eiermann W et al (2009) Phase III trial evaluating the addition of paclitaxel to doxorubicin followed by cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil, as adjuvant or primary systemic therapy: European Cooperative Trial in Operable Breast Cancer. J Clin Oncol 27:2474–2481

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Bear HD, Anderson S, Smith SE et al (2006) Sequential preoperative or postoperative docetaxel added to preoperative doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide for operable breast cancer: National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol B-27. J Clin Oncol 24:2019–2027

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Español (CASPe) Calculadora para metaanálisis. Available at: www.redcaspe.org

  11. Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE et al (1997) The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 50:683–691

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Wells GA, Sultan SA, Chen L et al (2009) Indirect evidence: indirect treatment comparison in meta-analysis. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, Ottawa. Available at: http://www.cadth.ca/index.php/en/itc-user-guide/ download-software

  13. Martín M, Pienkowski T, Mackey J et al (2005) Adjuvant docetaxel for node-positive breast cancer. N Eng J Med 352:2302–2313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Goldstein LJ, O’Niell A, Sparano JA et al (2008) Concurrent doxorubicin plus docetaxel is not more efective than concurrent doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide in operable breast cancer with 0 to 3 axillary nodes: North American Breast Cancer Intergroup Trial E 2197. J Clin Oncol 26: 4092–4099

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Martín M, Lluch A, Seguí MA et al (2008) Multicenter, randomized phase III study of adjuvant chemotherapy for high risk, node-negative breast cancer comparing TAC with FAC: five-year efficacy analysis of the GEICAM 9805 trial. J Cin Oncol ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings 26[Suppl1]:abstract 542

  16. Del Mastro L, Costantini M, Durando A et al (2008) Cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and 5-fluorouracil versus epurubicin plus paclitaxel in nodepositive early breast cancer: a randomized phase III study of Gruppo Oncologico Nord Ovest-Mammella Intergruppo Group. J Cin Oncol ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings 26[Suppl]:abstract 516

  17. Kümmel S, Krocker J, Kohls A et al (2006) Randomised trial: survival benefit and safety of adjuvant dose-dense chemotherapy for node-positive breast cancer. Br J Cancer 94:1237–1244

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Roche H, Fumoleau P, Spielmann M et al (2006) Sequential adjuvant epirubicin-based and docetaxel chemotherapy for node-positive breast cancer patients: the FNCLCC PACS 01 Trial. J Clin Oncol 24:5664–5671

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Martín M, Rodríguez-Lescure A, Ruiz A et al (2008) Randomized phase III trial of fluorouracil, epirubicin and cyclophosphamide alone or followed by paclitaxel for early breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 100:805–814

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Fountzilas G, Skarlos D, Dafni U et al (2005) Postoperative dose-dense sequential chemotherapy with epirubicin, followed by CMF with or without paclitaxel, in patients with high-risk operable breast cancer: a randomized phase III study conducted by the Hellenic Cooperative Group. Ann Oncol 16:1762–1771

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Burnell M, Levine MN, Chapman JA et al (2010) 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 28:77–82

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Ellis P, Barret-Lee P, Johnson L et al (2009) Sequential docetaxel as adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer (TACT): an open label, phase III, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 373:1681–1692

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Polyzos A, Malamos N, Boukovinas I et al (2010) FEC versus sequential docetaxel followed by epirubicin/cyclophosphamide as adjuvant chemotherapy in women with axillary node-positive early breast cancer: a randomized study of the Hellenic Oncology Research Group (HORG). Breast Cancer Res Treat 119:95–104

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Nitz U, Huober J, Lisboa B et al (2008) Superiority of sequential docetaxel over standard FE100C in patients with intermediate risk breast cancer: survival results of the randomized intergroup phase III trial EC-Doc. 31st Annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, San Antonio, TX, abstract 78

  25. Francis P, Crown J, di Leo A et al (2008) Adjuvant chemotherapy with sequential or concurrent anthracycline and docetaxel: Breast International Group 02–98 randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 100:121–133

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Henderson C, Berry DA, Demetri GD et al (2003) Improved outcomes from adding sequential paclitaxel but not from escalating doxorubicin dose in an adjuvant chemotherapy regimen for patients with node-positive primary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 21:976–983

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Mamounas E, Bryant J, Lembersky B et al (2005) Paclitaxel after doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide as adjuvant chemotherapy for node-positive breast cancer: results from NSABP B-28. J Clin Oncol 23:3686–3696

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Cognetti F, de Laurentiis M, de Matteis A et al (2008) Sequential epirubicin-docetaxel-CMF as adjuvant therapy for node-positive early stage breast cancer: update results of the TAXit216 randomized trial. 33rd ESMO Congress, Stockholm, Sweden, abstract 1820

  29. Jones S, Holmes FA, O’shaughnessy J et al (2009) Docetaxel with cyclophosphamide is associated with an overall survival benefit compared with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide: 7-year follow-up of US Oncology Research Trial 9735. J Clin Oncol 27:1177–1183

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Citron ML, Berry DA, Cirrincione C et al (2003) 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 21:1431–1439

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Hudis C, Citron ML, Berry D et al (2005) Five year follow-up of INT C9741: dose-dense chemotherapy is safe and effective. 28th Annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, San Antonio, TX, abstract 41

  32. Swain SM, Jeong JH, Geyer CE et al (2008) NSABP B-30: definitive analysis of patient outcome from a randomized trial evaluating different schedules and combinations of adjuvant therapy containing doxorubicin, docetaxel, and cyclophosphamide in women with operable, node positive breast cancer. 31st Annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, San Antonio, TX, abstract 75

  33. Eiermann W, Pienkowski T, Crown J et al (2008) BCIRG 005 main efficacy analysis: a phase III randomized trial comparing docetaxel in combination with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by docetaxel (AC-T) in women with HER2 normal and axillary lymph node positive early breast cancer. 31st Annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, San Antonio, TX, abstract 77

  34. Poole CJ, Hiller L, Howard H et al (2008) tAnGo: a randomized phase III trial of gemcitabine in paclitaxel-containing, epirubicin/cyclophosphamide-based, adjuvant chemotherapy for women with early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings 26[Suppl 1]:abstract 506

  35. Joensuu H, Kellokumpu-Lehtinen PL, Huovinen R et al (2009) Adjuvant capecitabine in combination with docetaxel and cyclophosphamide plus epirubicin for breast cancer: an open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncology 10:1145–1151

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Sparano JA, Wang M, Martino S et al (2008) Weekly paclitaxel in the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer. N Eng J Med 358:1663–1671

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Watanabe T, Kuranami K, Inoue K et al (2009) Phase III trial comparing 4-cycle doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide followed by 4-cycle taxane with 8-cycle taxane as adjuvant therapy for nodepositive breast cancer: Results of N-SAS-BC02 trial. J Cin Oncol ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings 27(15S):abstract 516

    Google Scholar 

  38. Engelsman E, Kligin JC, Rubens RD et al (1991) “Classical” CMF versus 3-weekly intravenous CMF schedule in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer: an EORTC breast cancer co-operative group phase III trial (10808). Eur J Cancer 27:966–970

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Gennari A, Sormani M, Costantini M et al (2006) Anthracycline regimens versus CMF in the adjuvant treatment of early cancer: a matter of difference. J Clin Oncol ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings 18[Suppl]:abstract 569

  40. Fisher B, Brown AM, Dimitrov NV et al (1990) Two months of doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide with and without interval reinduction therapy compared with 6 months of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil in positive-node breast cancer patients with tamoxifen-nonresponsive tumors: results from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast Cancer and Bowel Project B-15. J Clin Oncol 8:1483–1496

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Fisher B, Anderson S, Tan-Chiu E et al (2001) Tamoxifen and chemotherapy for axillary nodenegative, estrogen receptor-negative breast cancer: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast Cancer and Bowel Project B-23. J Clin Oncol 19: 931–942

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Martín M, Villar A, Sole-Calvo A et al (2003) Doxorubicin in combination with fluorouracil and cyclophosphamide (i.v. FAC regimen, day 1, 21) versus methotrexate in combination with fluorouracil and cyclophsphamide (i.v. CMF regimen, day 1, 21) as adjuvant chemotherapy for operable breast cancer: a study by the GEICAM group. Ann Oncol 14:833–842

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Hutchins LF, Green SJ, Ravdin PM et al (2005) Randomized controlled trial of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and fluorouracil versus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin and fluorouracil with and without tamoxifen for high risk, node-negative breast cancer: treatment results of Intergroup protocol INT-0102. J Clin Oncol 23:8313–8321

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Levine MN, Pritchard KI, Bramwell VH et al (2005) Randomized trial comparing cyclophosphamide, epirubicin and fluorouracil versus cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and fluorouracil in premenopausal women with node-positive breast cancer: update of National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group Trial MA.5. J Clin Oncol 23:5166–5170

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Poole CJ, Earl HM, Hiller L et al (2006) Epirubicin and cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil as adjuvant therapy for early breast cancer. N Eng J Med 355:1851–1862

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Fumoleau P, Kerbrat P, Romestaing P et al (2003) Randomized trial comparing six versus three cycles of epirubicin-based adjuvant chemotherapy in premenopausal, node positive breast cancer patients: 10-year follow-up results of the French Adjuvant Study Group 01 trial. J Clin Oncol 21:298–305

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Bonneterre J, Roche H, Kerbrat P et al (2005) Epirubicin increases long-term survival in adjuvant chemotherapy of patients with poor-prognosis, node-positive, early breast cancer: 10-year follow-up results of the French Adjuvant Study Group 05 randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 23:2686–2693

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Perez DJ, Harvey VJ, Robinson BA et al (1991) A randomized comparison of single-agent doxorubicin and epirubicin as first-line cytotoxic therapy in advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 9:2148–2152

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology Breast Cancer v.1.2010. Available at: www.nccn.org

  50. Del Mastro L, Dozin B, Aitini E et al (2008) Timing of adjuvant chemotherapy and tamoxifen in women with breast cancer: findings for two consecutive trials of Gruppo Oncologico Nord-Ovest-Mammella Intergruppo (GONO-MIG) Group. Ann Oncol 19:299–307

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Giménez Poderós T, Gaminde Inda I, Iruin Sanz A et al (2005) Taxanos en el tratamiento adyuvante del cáncer de mama con ganglios positivos: metanálisis. Farm Hosp 29:75–85

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Jones SE, Erban J, Overmoyer B et al (2005) Randomized phase III study of docetaxel compared with paclitaxel in metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 23:5542–5551

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Seidman AD, Berry D, Cirrincione C et al (2008) Randomized phase III of weekly compared with every-three-weeks paclitaxel for metastatic breast cancer, with trastuzumab for all HER2 overexpressors and random assignment to trastuzumab or not in HER2 non-overexpressors: final results of Cancer and Leukemia Group B protocol 9840. J Clin Oncol 26:1642–1649

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Early and locally advanced breast cancer. Diagnosis and treatment. NICE clinical guideline 80. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, February 2009

  55. López-Tarruella S, Martín M (2009) Advances in adjuvant systemic chemotherapy of early breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 11:204

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Carey LA, Perou CM, Livasy CA et al (2006) Race, breast cancer subtypes, and survival in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study. JAMA 295:2492–2502

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Rouzier R, Perou CM, Symmans WF et al (2005) Breast cancer molecular subtypes respond differently to preoperative chemotherapy. Clin Cancer Res 11:5678–5685

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. de Ronde JJ, Hannemann J, Halfwerk H et al (2010) Concordance of clinical and molecular breast cancer subtyping in the context of the preoperative chemotherapy response. Breast Cancer Res Treat 119:119–126

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Hayes DF, Thor AD, Dressler LG et al (2007) HER2 response to paclitaxel in node-positive breast cancer. N Eng J Med 357:1496–1506

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Penault-Llorca P, André F, Sagan C et al (2009) Ki67 expression and docetaxel efficacy in patients with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 27:2809–2815

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Hugh J, Hanson J, Cheang MC et al (2009) Breast cancer subtypes and response to docetaxel in node-positive breast cancer: use of an inmunohistochemical definition in the BCIRG 001 trial. J Clin Oncol 27:1168–1111

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Servicio de Farmacia, Hospital Universitario Son Espases, Crtra. de Valldemossa, 79, ES-07010, Palma de Mallorca, Baleares, Spain

    Jordi Ginés, Clara Martorell & Marta Monroy

  2. Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research Iberia, Madrid, Spain

    Eliazar Sabater, María Grau & Miguel A. Casado

Authors
  1. Jordi Ginés
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eliazar Sabater
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Clara Martorell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. María Grau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Marta Monroy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Miguel A. Casado
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jordi Ginés.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ginés, J., Sabater, E., Martorell, C. et al. Efficacy of taxanes as adjuvant treatment of breast cancer: a review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials. Clin Transl Oncol 13, 485–498 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-011-0686-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-011-0686-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation