Adjuvant chemotherapy for early female breast cancer: a systematic review of the evidence for the 2014 Cancer Care Ontario systemic therapy guideline

Practice Guideline

Adjuvant chemotherapy for early female breast cancer: a systematic review of the evidence for the 2014 Cancer Care Ontario systemic therapy guideline


S. Gandhi , MSc MD * , G.G. Fletcher , MSc , A. Eisen , MD * , M. Mates , MD , O.C. Freedman , MD § , S.F. Dent , MD , M.E. Trudeau , MD *

* Sunnybrook Health Science Centre, Toronto, ON.
Program in Evidence-Based Care, Cancer Care Ontario; and Department of Oncology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON.
Cancer Centre of Southeastern Ontario, Kinston General Hospital; and Queen’s University, Kingston, ON.
§ Durham Regional Cancer Centre, Oshawa, ON.
The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre and University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON.


doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3747/co.22.2321


ABSTRACT

Background

The Program in Evidence-Based Care ( pebc ) of Cancer Care Ontario recently created an evidence-based consensus guideline on the systemic treatment of early breast cancer. The evidence for the guideline was compiled using a systematic review to answer the question “What is the optimal systemic therapy for patients with early-stage, operable breast cancer, when patient and disease factors are considered?”

The question was addressed in three parts: cytotoxic chemotherapy, endocrine treatment, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 ( her 2)–directed therapy.

Methods

For the systematic review, the medline and embase databases were searched for the period January 2008 to May 2014. The Standards and Guidelines Evidence directory of cancer guidelines and the Web sites of major oncology guideline organizations were also searched. The basic search terms were “breast cancer” and “systemic therapy” (chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, targeted agents, ovarian suppression), and results were limited to randomized controlled trials ( rct s), guidelines, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.

Results

Several hundred documents that met the inclusion criteria were retrieved. The Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group meta-analyses encompassed many of the rct s found. Several additional studies that met the inclusion criteria were retained, as were other guidelines and systematic reviews. Chemotherapy was reviewed mainly in three classes: anti-metabolite–based regimens (for example, cyclophosphamide–methotrexate–5-fluorouracil), anthracyclines, and taxane-based regimens. In general, single-agent chemotherapy is not recommended for the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer in any patient population. Anthracycline–taxane-based polychemotherapy regimens are, overall, considered superior to earlier-generation regimens and have the most significant impact on patient survival outcomes. Regimens with varying anthracycline and taxane doses and schedules are options; in general, paclitaxel given every 3 weeks is inferior. Evidence does not support the use of bevacizumab in the adjuvant setting; other systemic therapy agents such as metformin and vaccines remain investigatory. Adjuvant bisphosphonates for menopausal women will be discussed in later work.

Conclusions

The results of this systematic review constitute a comprehensive compilation of the high-level evidence that is the basis for the 2014 pebc guideline on systemic therapy for early breast cancer. Use of cytotoxic chemotherapy is presented here; the results addressing endocrine therapy and her 2-targeted treatment, and the final clinical practice recommendations, are published separately in this supplement.

KEYWORDS: Early breast cancer , systemic treatment , chemotherapy , adjuvant , cytotoxic , drug therapy

1.  INTRODUCTION

The outcomes of patients with early breast cancer have been improved with the use of adjuvant systemic treatments1, which include chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, and targeted agents (trastuzumab) for eligible subgroups of patients. Several clinical practice guidelines make recommendations for the selection of adjuvant systemic therapy based on primary evidence or consensus (or both). Still, practice is variable in the Ontario health care setting2.

The Program in Evidence Care ( pebc ), together with the Breast Cancer Disease Site Group of Cancer Care Ontario ( cco ), is charged with developing evidence-based practice guidelines pertaining to breast cancer care. Over many years, the pebc has created clinical practice guidelines addressing various aspects of adjuvant systemic therapy for early breast cancer. The creation of an updated, comprehensive guideline pertaining to all aspects of systemic therapy for early breast cancer was recently identified as a priority. The resulting guideline is most applicable to the Canadian (and particularly Ontario) setting, but any high-resource health care context might find the guideline to be applicable. A systematic review of the evidence was conducted to inform the guideline recommendations. Thereafter, expert consensus was used to validate compiled recommendations before creation of the final guideline. The recommendations and a summary of the consensus process can be found in this supplement and on the cco Web site3.

The present article outlines the evidence base used for the adjuvant chemotherapy recommendations. It can be used as a standalone reference that reviews the extensive data on this important area of breast cancer care. The evidence reviews for endocrine therapy in hormone receptor–positive cancer and for biologic or targeted therapy (trastuzumab) are published elsewhere in this supplement.

Early breast cancer was defined primarily as invasive cancer of stage i iia (T1N0–1, T2N0). Studies describing cancers as operable or stages i iiia were also included (see the Methods section).

Although several of the systemic therapies discussed here can be considered in the neoadjuvant setting, this review focuses on trials with disease-free ( dfs ) or overall survival ( os ) as endpoints; it thus excludes several neoadjuvant trials that used only pathologic complete response as the primary endpoint.

2.  METHODS

One systematic review was conducted for all systemic therapies, and therefore the search strategy and subsequent general results apply to chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, and targeted therapy combined.

2.1  Literature Search Strategy

The literature in the medline and embase databases was searched for the period January 2008 to March 5, 2012; the search was later updated to May 12, 2014. To be selected, publications had to include terms related both to breast cancer and to systemic therapy (chemotherapy; endocrine therapy, including ovarian suppression; and targeted agents). The search was limited to randomized controlled trials ( rct s), guidelines, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. Although systemic agents were, in most cases, indexed to terms such as “adjuvant therapy,” individual chemotherapy agents or regimens were xalso included. The full database search strategy is presented in Supplementary Appendix 1. Guidelines were also located in the Standards and Guidelines Evidence directory of cancer guidelines and at the Web sites of organizations known to produce oncology-related guidelines [National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (United Kingdom), Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, American Society of Clinical Oncology, National Comprehensive Cancer Network (United States), National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), New Zealand Guidelines Group]. Evidence was selected and reviewed by one member (GGF) of the pebc Early Breast Cancer Systemic Therapy Working Group; all authors provided input on the included results once initial screening was complete.

2.2   Study Selection Criteria: RCTs

Clinical trials were included if they evaluated at least 100 female patients with early-stage breast cancer randomized to at least 1 systemic agent and if they used survival (generally os or dfs ) as one of the primary or secondary outcomes. Studies had to describe the patients as having early or operable breast cancer, or allow the population characteristics to be ascertained from the methods or results. Trials evaluating patients with stages iib and iiia cancers were included only if stage iia patients were also part of the population and if at least half the patients had stages i iib cancer. When only tumour size and nodal status were reported, stage was estimated according to the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 6th edition4,5, to decide whether the study met the inclusion criteria. Studies with mostly stage iii or locally advanced tumours were excluded, as were studies that focused on stage iv (metastatic) breast cancer, noninvasive cancers (ductal carcinoma in situ or lobular carcinoma in situ ), or treatment of cancer relapse. Trials primarily evaluating antiemetic drugs, erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, or autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation were excluded. Studies of bisphosphonates to prevent metastasis or cancer recurrence were included; studies evaluating any bone-targeted agents to treat bone metastasis were excluded. Studies were eliminated if they were not relevant to the current practice setting in Ontario (for example, they evaluated older drugs no longer used), reported only exploratory analyses or correlations, or did not report survival endpoints.

2.3  Other Publication Selection

Clinical practice guidelines were considered relevant if the recommendations were based on a systematic review of the literature or were described as evidence-based consensus. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses were also evaluated. Quality of the systematic reviews and meta-analyses was assessed using the amstar tool6. For rct s, study or trial design and quality characteristics were assessed; however, rct s included in high-quality systematic reviews and meta-analyses were not separately appraised. Relevant rct s cited in systematic reviews, guidelines, or meta-analyses were compared with those found in the medline and embase database search results. Any studies that had not been captured in the search were retrieved if deemed important for further evaluation. Studies whose long-term follow-up data were pending and studies referenced in abstract form only were targeted for further literature review to retrieve any updated documents. Referenced trials from before 2008 were also retrieved when deemed appropriate. Abstracts presented at major conferences were initially searched as part of the grey literature; however, most of the relevant studies were found to be included in the updated embase database results, and conference proceedings were therefore not explicitly included.

3.   RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1   Overall Literature Search Results

After removal of duplicate citations, the searches in medline and embase located 14,444 publications (11,435 rct s and 3009 systematic reviews, guidelines, or meta-analyses). Of the guidelines, systematic reviews, and meta-analysis, 287 were deemed to be of relevance; most were reviewed to locate rct s not captured in the database search. In addition, those publications helped to inform patient selection criteria for the guideline recommendations. Approximately 50 trials (chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, or targeted therapy) found in medline or embase had not been cited in the other guidelines and systematic reviews. Ultimately, 516 trial publications (from the database results and targeted searching) were extracted; 221 were pertinent to cytotoxic chemotherapy.

The Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group ( ebctcg ) is an international collaboration that was formed in 1985 to evaluate studies of early (operable) breast cancer. Every 5 years, the group completes an individual patient meta-analysis (considered the highest level of evidence)7 from all rct s worldwide on aspects of early breast cancer therapy. Several of the ebctcg meta-analyses812 are referenced in this series of systematic reviews. Given the rigorous methodology and comprehensiveness of the ebctcg analyses, many of the individual rct s were not retrieved for data extraction or quality appraisal; however, some limitations of the ebctcg data are discussed.

Individual rct s and the guidelines, reviews, and meta-analyses were sorted into studies of chemotherapy, endocrine therapy for hormone receptor–positive cancers, and targeted therapy for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 ( her 2)–positive cancers. Chemotherapy trials were further subdivided into major cytotoxic classes: anti-metabolites, including cmf [cyclophosphamide–methotrexate–5-fluorouracil)], anthracyclines, taxanes, and other agents. The major endocrine therapies were tamoxifen, aromatase inhibitors ( ai s), and ovarian suppression (by luteinizing hormone–releasing hormone agonists) or ovarian ablation (by surgery or radiation). For her 2-positive cancers, trastuzumab was the only biologic or targeted agent that was found to have sufficient evidence to be included in the final guideline recommendations. The results of the chemotherapy studies are discussed in this systematic review; results pertaining to endocrine treatments and trastuzumab are published elsewhere in this supplement.

3.2  Antimetabolites and Anthracyclines

The ebctcg analysis published in 2005 reported on rct s of adjuvant chemotherapy or hormonal therapy that began by 19959. Chemotherapy trials during that period primarily compared cmf with no treatment or with anthracycline-based chemotherapy such as fac (5-fluorouracil–doxorubicin–cyclophosphamide) or fec (5-fluorouracil–epirubicin–cyclophosphamide). The ebctcg meta-analyses8,9 include most of the trials that have been conducted for cmf and anthracyclines. Because most of those rct s are older trials, most are complete, with mature data. Extended long-term follow-up or exploratory analysis of patient or disease subgroups are pending in a few studies. However, those results are not expected to change the overall conclusions of the meta-analyses.

The ebctcg review published in 20059 concluded that 6 months of fac or fec chemotherapy reduced the annual breast cancer death rate by approximately 38% in patients less than 50 years of age and by 20% in patients 50–69 years of age at diagnosis. Those regimens are significantly more effective than classic cmf (with oral cyclophosphamide, which is known to be superior to intravenous cyclophosphamide in this regimen). The most recent ebctcg analysis8 concluded that 4 cycles of ac (doxorubicin–cyclophosphamide) and 6 cycles of classic cmf are equivalent, but that anthracycline-based regimens such as cyclophosphamide–doxorubicin–5-fluorouracil or cef (cyclophosphamide–epirubicin–5-fluorouracil), in which the cumulative dose is higher than that achieved with 4 cycles of ac , are superior to classic cmf . Compared with no chemotherapy, the reduction in mortality was greater with cyclophosphamide–doxorubicin–5-fluorouracil (relative risk 0.64) than with 4 cycles of ac (relative risk 0.78) or with 6 cycles of classic cmf (relative risk 0.76). The meta-analysis of all regimens based on anthracyclines or taxanes (or both) found that age, nodal status, tumour size or grade, estrogen receptor status, and tamoxifen use had little effect on proportional risk reductions.

Relevant studies found in the literature search are summarized in Supplemental Table 11338 ( cmf or other antimetabolites) and Supplemental Table 225,36,3955 (anthracyclines). Supplemental Table 1 presents seventeen rct s, of which ten were not reported in the ebctcg meta-analysis. Supplemental Table 2 presents thirteen studies, of which seven were not included in the ebctcg meta-analysis. The additional studies do not change the conclusions from the ebctcg meta-analyses, but do address the use of other chemotherapy agents or specific concepts pertaining to certain drugs. Notably, the study by Muss et al. 16 found that capecitabine monotherapy was inferior to either cmf or ac in the elderly population; that regimen is therefore not recommended for adjuvant treatment. Trials that examined the anthracycline–taxane regimens or the addition of gemcitabine or capecitabine to them are discussed in the Taxanes subsection (next). Some studies31,38 examined drugs not commonly used in Canada for the treatment of breast cancer. Several studies53,54,5658 used the fec regimen with or without taxanes and with doses of epirubicin less than 100 mg/m2; they are thus not relevant to practice in Ontario. A few publications presented trial subgroup analyses or molecular studies. For instance, Cheang et al. 43 evaluated outcomes in the ma .5 study according to intrinsic subtype as determined by the pam 50 test. In that retrospective analysis, patients with disease of the her 2-positive subtype appeared to gain the most benefit from anthracycline chemotherapy, but the difference was not statistically significant. It is unclear whether those results are clinically meaningful, because trastuzumab was not part of the treatment. As noted earlier, additional evidence from the systematic review for the treatment of her 2-positive breast cancer is published separately in this supplement.

3.3  Taxanes

Use of taxanes [docetaxel ( t ) or paclitaxel ( p )] for the adjuvant therapy of breast cancer has been a more recent therapeutic advance. In contrast with earlier work, the most recent ebctcg meta-analysis included comparisons of taxanes with anthracyclines for trials beginning up to 2003; data available up to mid-2010 were included8.

Many of the rct s evaluating the use of taxanes compared them with anthracycline-based regimens, because the latter are superior to older cmf -type regimens. In the present evidence review, trials of taxanes represented the largest number of rct s (fifty-five trials in ninety-three publications) and are summarized in Supplemental Table 321,2730,35,36,4954,56136. Because taxane studies are relatively recent, our database search found most of the published trials cited in other reviews or meta-analyses. Of those latter publications, the ebctcg review8 was again the most complete, and only two additional studies comparing taxanes with anthracyclines were found. Notably, the ebctcg analysis did not cover neoadjuvant therapy, comparisons of taxane with non-anthracycline regimens, and comparisons of the dose or type of taxane—for example, t compared with p . In the latter category, fourteen rct s were found in medline or embase , and one study was identified from other reviews.

3.3.1  Anthracycline Plus Taxane Compared with Anthracycline Chemotherapy Alone

Many of the individual rct s that compared anthracycline–taxane chemotherapy with chemotherapy based on anthracycline alone demonstrated superiority for the taxane arm (Supplemental Table 3). Interestingly, when those studies were pooled in the ebctcg meta-analysis, outcomes in the taxane and anthracycline arms were equivalent for several comparisons. On further analysis, it was established that the amount of anthracycline chemotherapy administered in each study arm was important.

In the ebctcg analysis, trials that compared added cycles of taxane chemotherapy with an anthracycline regimen (for example, ac ×4 vs. ac ×4→ p ×4 or ac ×4→ t ×4) were considered “unconfounded.” In those studies, the taxane arm included more chemotherapy cycles and was associated with superior outcomes.

Other studies were considered “confounded” because, in the comparator taxane arm, the anthracycline (or other non-taxane chemotherapy) was also altered. Examples of such studies include fec ×6 compared with epirubicin–cyclophosphamide × 4 → t ×4, and cef ×6 compared with dose-dense epirubicin–cyclophosphamide × 4 → t ×4 or p ×4. Most of the studies contained more anthracycline (but less than double the amount) in the control arms; nonetheless, the taxane-containing regimens were still found to be superior. Another example is studies that evaluated taxanes given concurrently with anthracyclines in the comparator arm such that the total number of chemotherapy cycles was not increased, and the difference in anthracycline exposure was minimal or nonexistent: for instance, fac ×6 compared with tac (docetaxel–doxorubicin–cyclophosphamide) × 6. Those trials also favoured the taxane-containing arms.

In the ebctcg analysis, the only studies that were ultimately found not to show superiority for the taxane regimen were trials that significantly truncated the amount of anthracycline chemotherapy in the taxane arm. In those trials, the control arm contained double (or close to double) the amount of anthracycline—for example, fec ×6 compared with fec ×3→ t ×3. Notably, several of the studies, such as pacs 01 ( fec ×6 compared with fec ×3→ t ×3), favoured the taxane arm and influenced practice with their independent results. Another important consideration is that limiting anthracycline exposure can be clinically important to mitigate adverse effects, including cardiotoxicity and leukemia (the risks of which increase with a higher anthracycline dose).

In summary, the addition of taxanes to anthracycline-based chemotherapy is generally preferred over anthracycline-based chemotherapy alone. Strategies for taxane use vary as already described, and preferred regimens for the Ontario context are summarized in Table i and discussed in the guideline recommendations elsewhere in this supplement. The recommendations also consider additional evidence with respect to taxane chemotherapy as discussed next.

TABLE I   Recommendations for adjuvant chemotherapy

 

3.3.2  Anthracycline Chemotherapy Compared with Taxane Chemotherapy

A few studies have directly compared an anthracycline and a taxane. The U.S. Oncology Research Trial 9735103 compared ac ×4 with docetaxel–cyclophosphamide × 4 and demonstrated superior survival outcomes for the docetaxel–cyclophosphamide regimen. For patients in whom an anthracycline might not be ideal, docetaxel–cyclophosphamide is considered a reasonable alternative.

3.3.3  Comparison of Taxane-Based Regimens

Although the ebctcg analysis excluded comparisons of various taxanes or doses, such studies were found during the literature search and are included in Supplemental Table 3. Notable trials include the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 1199116 trial that demonstrated the utility of ac ×4→ p weekly and found improved survival compared with p every 3 weeks. That trial also demonstrated that p every 3 weeks is inferior to t every 3 weeks. There was no direct comparison of ac p weekly with ac ×4→ t ×4 every 3 weeks. The Cancer and Leukemia Group B 9741 trial109 found that, compared with ac p every 3 weeks, ac p or a p c administered every 2 weeks resulted in better survival (but also in more adverse effects). The ma .21 trial52 found that dose-dense epirubicin–cyclophosphamide → p is equivalent to cef and that both regimens are superior to ac ×4→ p ×4 every 3 weeks. In bcirg 5112, tac ×6 was found to be effective, and in National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-38119,120, it was found to be equivalent to dose-dense ac → dose-dense p , although disparate toxicities were observed. Finally, tac ×4 was found, in National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B30111, to be an inferior regimen.

3.3.4  Neoadjuvant Taxanes

Supplemental Table 3 summarizes sixteen publications representing ten studies36,51,59,101,102,108,126136 that evaluated the use of taxanes in the neoadjuvant setting. However, the guideline for which this evidence was compiled focused specifically on adjuvant therapy for these reasons:

  • The patient population for whom neoadjuvant therapy can be considered shows significant variability, containing both early operable and locally advanced cases, which represent different classes of disease.

  • The systematic review of the evidence focused on trials reporting dfs and os rates as endpoints and thus excluded several trials that used pathologic complete response as a primary endpoint (a common outcome in explicitly neoadjuvant trials).

The studies included in our review therefore represent only some of the data pertinent to neoadjuvant therapy in early breast cancer.

3.3.5  Taxanes and Other Chemotherapy Drugs

Several studies53,54,5658 used the fec regimen with or without taxanes and with epirubicin doses less than 100 mg/m2 and thus are not relevant to practice in Ontario. Based on the f in her study57, vinorelbine is inferior to docetaxel when followed by fec . The f in xx study21 evaluated capecitabine ( x ) and found an improved breast cancer–specific survival rate and fewer local relapses for tx cex compared with t cef . However, the difference in the os rate was not statistically significant. In addition, the doses of the taxane and the anthracycline are both considered nonstandard in the Ontario setting. A trial by Kelly et al. 125 also demonstrated no benefit for the addition of capecitabine to an anthracycline–taxane regimen. In National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-38121,122, the addition of gemcitabine to dose-dense ac ×4 → dose-dense p ×4 was associated with improved outcomes, but increased adverse effects.

3.4  Other Systemic Therapy Agents

3.4.1  Bisphosphonates

A previous pebc guideline137 evaluated the use of bisphosphonates in both early and metastatic breast cancer. At that time, many studies were ongoing, and those studies were still largely unreported at the time of the most recent literature search. However, subsequent to the literature search and consensus conference, new data from the ebctcg meta-analysis were presented in abstract form138, highlighting the utility of adjuvant bisphosphonates in improving breast cancer survival outcomes in postmenopausal women. The final publication of those data is still pending, and the use of adjuvant bisphosphonates will be specifically addressed in future work.

3.4.2  Bevacizumab

The beatrice trial139 studied the use of bevacizumab, a vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor, for 1 year in addition to chemotherapy in patients with triple-negative operable breast cancer. Of the chemotherapy regimens studied, 36% were based on anthracycline; 58%, on anthracycline–taxane; and 5%, on taxane. The target number of events had not been reached, and extended follow-up continues. At a median follow-up of 32 months, no significant difference in invasive dfs or in os had been observed with the addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy. Patients receiving bevacizumab experienced increased incidences of grade 3 or 4 hypertension (12% vs. 1%), severe cardiac events (1.5% vs. 0.3%), and treatment discontinuation (20% vs. 2%). The art emis trial140,141 gave patients with early-stage her 2-negative breast cancer neoadjuvant docetaxel followed by fec chemotherapy with or without 4 cycles of bevacizumab; survival outcomes have not yet been reported.

3.4.3  Metformin

In the ncic trial ma .32, adjuvant metformin for 5 years is being compared with placebo (in addition to other standard adjuvant treatments) in early-stage breast cancer142. Follow-up is ongoing.

3.4.4   Goserelin in Hormone Receptor–Negative Patients

The Prevention of Early Menopause Study ( swog S0230)143,144 evaluated the use of goserelin in preventing chemotherapy-induced ovarian failure in hormone receptor–negative patients. Compared with patients receiving standard chemotherapy alone, those in the goserelin arm indeed experienced less premature ovarian failure (8% vs. 22%), with improved pregnancy rates. At 4 years, patients in the goserelin arm were experiencing better dfs (hazard ratio: 0.49; p = 0.04) and os (hazard ratio: 0.43; p = 0.05). That result is recognized to be exploratory, given early closure of the study, a small sample size, and the fact that survival outcomes were tertiary endpoints.

3.4.5  Vaccines

Our systematic review identified early-phase randomized studies evaluating the her 2 peptide vaccines AE37 and E75 as novel adjuvant systemic therapy agents. In a phase ii study, the AE37 vaccine145 has been associated with promising reductions in recurrence risk, particularly in certain disease phenotypes such as triple-negative; phase iii study is recommended. In optimally dosed patients, the E75 vaccine has been associated with improved dfs in early studies146,147; a phase iii trial (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01479244) is under way.

4.   SUMMARY

A comprehensive systematic review of the literature concerning the use of adjuvant systemic therapy for early breast cancer addressed the question “What is the optimal systemic therapy for early breast cancer when patient and disease characteristics are considered?” The use of adjuvant chemotherapy, outlined here, demonstrates the overall superiority of anthracycline–taxane regimens for eligible patients. That evidence, together with the systematic reviews of endocrine therapy and her 2-targeted treatment in this supplement, forms the basis of the recommendations in the pebc ’s systemic therapy guideline for early breast cancer3.

5.   REVIEW AND UPDATE

Practice guidelines and literature reviews developed by the pebc are reviewed and updated regularly. For the full 1–21 evidence-based series and subsequent updates, please visit the cco Web site at https://www.cancercare.on.ca/toolbox/qualityguidelines/diseasesite/breast-ebs/.

6. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors thank the members of the Breast Cancer Disease Site Group for their contributions to this project.

The pebc is a provincial initiative of cco supported by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. All work produced by the pebc is editorially independent from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care.

7. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES

We have read and understood Current Oncology ’s policy on disclosing conflicts of interest, and we declare the following interests: SG has received speaking honoraria from Novartis. AE has received a grant from Genomic Health for a pending research study and was a ncic principal investigator for the o lympi a trial. SFD was a principal investigator for the aphinity trial; has received speaking honoraria from Hoffman–La Roche, Amgen, and Novartis; travel support from Celgene and Roche; and unrestricted educational grants from Roche, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, and Amgen. MET has overseen funds from Roche and Amgen for the Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre chemotherapy suite renovation, from Amgen for a drug reimbursement specialist, and from Eisai, Roche, Novartis, and Amgen for fellowship funding. MET has also received grants or research support from Astellas, Medivation, and Novartis. The other working group members declared that they had no conflicts.

8. REFERENCES

1. Berry DA, Cronin KA, Plevritis SK, et al. on behalf of the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (cisnet) collaborators. Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2005;353:1784–92.
cross-ref  pubmed  

2. Eisen A, Srikanthan A, Yeung L, Iyer R, Trudeau M. Provincial variation in utilization of adjuvant chemotherapy regimens in early stage breast cancer: data from the Cancer Care Ontario New Drug Funding Program (ndfp) [abstract P3-12-1]. Cancer Res 2013;73(suppl):.
cross-ref  

3. Eisen A, Fletcher GG, Gandhi S, et al. Optimal Systemic Therapy for Early Female Breast Cancer. Evidence-based series 1–21. Toronto, ON: Cancer Care Ontario; 2014. [Available online at: https://www.cancercare.on.ca/toolbox/qualityguidelines/diseasesite/breast-ebs/; cited August 19, 2014]

4. Singletary SE, Allred C, Ashley P, et al. Part vii. Breast. In: Greene FL, Page DL, Fleming ID, et al., eds. American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Manual. 6th ed. New York, NY: Springer–Verlag; 2002: 221–40.

5. Singletary SE, Allred C, Ashley P, et al. Revision of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:3628–36.
cross-ref  pubmed  

6. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of amstar: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007;7:10. [Available online at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1810543/pdf/1471-2288-7-10.pdf; cited December 7, 2013]
cross-ref  

7. Simmonds MC, Higgins JP, Stewart LA, Tierney JF, Clarke MJ, Thompson SG. Meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized trials: a review of methods used in practice. Clin Trials 2005;2:209–17.
cross-ref  pubmed  

8. Peto R, Davies C, Godwin J, et al. on behalf of the Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group. 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.
cross-ref  

9. Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group. Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet 2005;365:1687–717.
cross-ref  pubmed  

10. Davies C, Godwin J, Gray R, et al. on behalf of the Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group. Relevance of breast cancer hormone receptors and other factors to the efficacy of adjuvant tamoxifen: patient-level meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet 2011;378:771–84.
cross-ref  pubmed  pmc  

11. Clarke M, Coates AS, Darby SC, et al. on behalf of the Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group. Adjuvant chemotherapy in oestrogen-receptor-poor breast cancer: patient-level meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet 2008;371:29–40.
cross-ref  pubmed  

12. Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group. Ovarian ablation in early breast cancer: overview of the randomised trials. Lancet 1996;348:1189–96.
cross-ref  

13. Amadori D, Nanni O, Volpi A, et al. Phase iii randomized multicenter study on the effects of adjuvant cmf in patients with node-negative, rapidly proliferating breast cancer: twelve-year results and retrospective subgroup analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2008;108:259–64.
cross-ref  

14. Amadori D, Nanni O, Marangolo M, et al. Disease-free survival advantage of adjuvant cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil in patients with node-negative, rapidly proliferating breast cancer: a randomized multicenter study. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:3125–34.
pubmed  

15. Taucher S, Steger GG, Jakesz R, et al. on behalf of the Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group-07. The potential risk of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients— results from a prospective randomized trial of the Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group (abcsg-07). Breast Cancer Res Treat 2008;112:309–16.
cross-ref  

16. Muss HB, Berry DA, Cirrincione CT, et al. on behalf of the calgb Investigators. Adjuvant chemotherapy in older women with early-stage breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2009;360:2055–65. [Erratum in: N Engl J Med 2009;361:1714]
cross-ref  pubmed  pmc  

17. Kornblith AB, Lan L, Archer L, et al. Quality of life of older patients with early-stage breast cancer receiving adjuvant chemotherapy: a companion study to Cancer and Leukemia Group B 49907. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:1022–8.
cross-ref  pubmed  pmc  

18. Ejlertsen B, Mouridsen HT, Jensen MB, et al. on behalf of the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group. Cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil; oral cyclophosphamide; levamisole; or no adjuvant therapy for patients with high-risk, premenopausal breast cancer. Cancer 2010;116:2081–9.
pubmed  

19. Ejlertsen B, Mouridsen HT, Jensen MB. Adjuvant cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil in premonopausal patients with node-positive breast cancer: indirect comparison of dose and schedule in dbcg trials 77, 82, and 89. Acta Oncol 2008;47:662–71.
cross-ref  

20. Ejlertsen B, Mouridsen HT, Jensen MB, et al. Improved outcome from substituting methotrexate with epirubicin: results from a randomised comparison of cmf versus cef in patients with primary breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 2007;43:877–84.
cross-ref  pubmed  

21. Joensuu H, Kellokumpu–Lehtinen PL, Huovinen R, et al. Adjuvant capecitabine, docetaxel, cyclophosphamide, and epirubicin for early breast cancer: final analysis of the randomized finxx trial. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:11–18.
cross-ref  

22. Canney P, Coleman R, Morden J, et al. tact2 trial in early breast cancer (ebc): differential rates of amenorrhoea in premenopausal women following adjuvant epirubicin (e) or accelerated epirubicin (ae) followed by capecitabine (x) or cmf (cruk/05/019) [abstract 200]. Eur J Cancer 2012;48(suppl):S102.
cross-ref  

23. Canney P, Barrett–Lee P, Bartlett J, et al. The U.K. tact2 trial: non-inferiority of capecitabine compared with cmf after epirubicin in patients requiring chemotherapy for early breast cancer (ebc) (cruk/05/019) [abstract 94]. Eur J Cancer 2014;50:S99–S100.

24. Helwick C. Dose-dense chemotherapy in breast cancer: epirubicin-based regimens studied in German and UK trials. The ASCO Post 2013;4:. [Available online at: http://www.ascopost.com/issues/march-1,-2013/dose-dense-chemotherapy-in-breast-cancer-epirubicin-based-regimens-studied-in-german-and-uk-trials.aspx; cited June 18, 2014]

25. Velikova G, Barrett–Lee P, Bloomfield D, et al. Quality of life results of the U.K. tact2 trial: more intensive chemotherapy for early breast cancer has a measurable impact on patient-reported symptoms and functioning (cruk/05/019) [abstract 227]. Eur J Cancer 2014;50:S109.

26. Ohno S, Chow LWC, Sato N, et al. Randomized trial of preoperative docetaxel with or without capecitabine after 4 cycles of 5-fluorouracil–epirubicin–cyclophosphamide (fec) in early-stage breast cancer: exploratory analyses identify Ki67 as a predictive biomarker for response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2013;142:69–80.
cross-ref  pubmed  pmc  

27. Pippen JE, Paul D, Stokoe CT, et al. Randomized, phase iii study of adjuvant doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide (ac) → docetaxel (t) with or without capecitabine (x) in high-risk early breast cancer: exploratory Ki-67 analyses [abstract 500]. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:. [Available online at: http://meetinglibrary.asco.org/content/78730-102; cited December 26, 2014]

28. O’Shaughnessy J, Paul D, Stokoe C, et al. First efficacy results of a randomized, open-label, phase iii study of adjuvant doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide, followed by docetaxel with or without capecitabine, in high-risk early breast cancer [abstract S4-2]. Cancer Res 2010;70:85s.
cross-ref  

29. O’Shaughnessy J, Pippen JE, Paul D, et al. Adjuvant capecitabine for invasive lobular/mixed early breast cancer (ebc): uson 01062 exploratory analyses [abstract 547]. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:. [Available online at: http://meetinglibrary.asco.org/content/101121-114; cited December 26, 2014]

30. Bermejo B, Ruiz A, Borrego MR, et al. Randomized phase iii study of adjuvant chemotherapy for node-positive early breast cancer (bc) patients (pts) comparing epirubicin plus cyclophosphamide followed by docetaxel (ect) versus epirubicin plus docetaxel followed by capecitabine (etx): efficacy analysis of the geicam/2003–10 trial [abstract 1027]. J Clin Oncol 2013;31:. [Available online at: http://meetinglibrary.asco.org/content/114381-132; cited December 26, 2014]

31. Watanabe T, Sano M, Takashima S, et al. Oral uracil and tegafur compared with classic cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, fluorouracil as postoperative chemotherapy in patients with node-negative, high-risk breast cancer: National Surgical Adjuvant Study for Breast Cancer 01 trial. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:1368–74.
cross-ref  pubmed  

32. Hara F, Watanabe T, Shimozuma K, Ohashi Y. Efficacy, toxicity and quality of life in older patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with oral tegafur–uracil or classical cmf (cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil): an exploratory analysis of national surgical adjuvant study for breast cancer (n-sas bc) 01 trial [abstract P1-13-10]. Cancer Res 2012;72(suppl):.
cross-ref  

33. Ejlertsen B, Jensen MB, Elversang J, et al. One year of adjuvant tamoxifen compared with chemotherapy and tamoxifen in postmenopausal patients with stage ii breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 2013;49:2986–94.
cross-ref  pubmed  

34. Colleoni M. International Breast Cancer Study Group (ibcsg) trial 22-00: low-dose cytotoxics as maintenance “anti-angiogenesis treatment” following adjuvant induction chemotherapy for patients with er-negative and pgr-negative breast cancer [abstract OT2-01-01]. Cancer Res 2011;71(suppl):.

35. Wardley AM, Hiller L, Howard HC, et al. on behalf of the tango Trial Collaborators. tango: a randomised phase iii trial of gemcitabine in paclitaxel-containing, epirubicin/cyclophosphamide–based, adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer: a prospective pulmonary, cardiac and hepatic function evaluation. Br J Cancer 2008;99:597–603.
cross-ref  pubmed  pmc  

36. Earl HM, Vallier AL, Hiller L, et al. on behalf of the neo-tango investigators. Effects of the addition of gemcitabine, and paclitaxel-first sequencing, in neoadjuvant sequential epirubicin, cyclophosphamide, and paclitaxel for women with high-risk early breast cancer (neo-tango): an open-label, 2×2 factorial randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2014;15:201–12.
cross-ref  

37. Toi M, Ohno S, Sato N, et al. Preoperative docetaxel (t) with or without capecitabine (x) following epirubicin, 5-fluorouracil and cyclophosphamide (fec) in patients with operable breast cancer (ootr N003): results of comparative study and predictive marker analysis [abstract P1-14-02]. Cancer Res 2012;72(suppl):.
cross-ref  

38. Schneeweiss A, Marme F, Ruiz A, et al. A randomized phase ii trial of doxorubicin plus pemetrexed followed by docetaxel versus doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide followed by docetaxel as neoadjuvant treatment of early breast cancer. Ann Oncol 2011;22:609–17.
cross-ref  

39. de Azambuja E, Paesmans M, Beauduin M, et al. Long-term benefit of high-dose epirubicin in adjuvant chemotherapy for node-positive breast cancer: 15-year efficacy results of the Belgian multicentre study. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:720–5.
cross-ref  

40. Kimura M, Tominaga T, Takatsuka Y, et al. on behalf of the Adjuvant CEF Research Group for Breast Cancer. Randomized trial of cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and fluorouracil chemotherapy compared with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil with node-positive breast cancer in Japan. Breast Cancer 2010;17:190–8.
cross-ref  

41. Amadori D, Silvestrini R, De Lena M, et al. Randomized phase iii trial of adjuvant epirubicin followed by cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and 5-fluorouracil (cmf) versus cmf followed by epirubicin in patients with node-negative or 1–3 node-positive rapidly proliferating breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2011;125:775–84.
cross-ref  

42. Rocca A, Bravaccini S, Scarpi E, et al. Benefit from anthracyclines in relation to biological profiles in early breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2014;144:307–18.
cross-ref  pubmed  

43. Cheang MC, Voduc KD, Tu D, et al. Responsiveness of intrinsic subtypes to adjuvant anthracycline substitution in the ncic ctg ma.5 randomized trial. Clin Cancer Res 2012;18:2402–12.
cross-ref  pubmed  pmc  

44. Bartlett JM, Munro AF, Dunn JA, et al. Predictive markers of anthracycline benefit: a prospectively planned analysis of the UK National Epirubicin Adjuvant Trial (neat/BR9601). Lancet Oncol 2010;11:266–74.
cross-ref  pubmed  

45. Poole CJ, Earl HM, Hiller L, et al. on behalf of the neat investigators and the sctbg. Epirubicin and cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil as adjuvant therapy for early breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2006;355:1851–62.
cross-ref  pubmed  

46. Earl HM, Hiller L, Dunn JA, et al. on behalf of the neat investigators and the sctbg. Adjuvant epirubicin followed by cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and fluorouracil (cmf) vs cmf in early breast cancer: results with over 7 years median follow-up from the randomised phase iii neat/BR9601 trials. Br J Cancer 2012;107:1257–67.
cross-ref  pubmed  pmc  

47. Earl HM, Hiller L, Dunn JA, et al. on behalf of neat investigators. neat: National Epirubicin Adjuvant Trial—toxicity, delivered dose intensity and quality of life. Br J Cancer 2008;99:1226–31.
cross-ref  pubmed  pmc  

48. van Nes JG, Putter H, Julien JP, et al. on behalf of the Cooperating Investigators of the eortc. Preoperative chemotherapy is safe in early breast cancer, even after 10 years of follow-up; clinical and translational results from the eortc trial 10902. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2009;115:101–13.
cross-ref  

49. Budd GT, Barlow WE, Moore HCF, et al. S0221: comparison of two schedules of paclitaxel as adjuvant therapy for breast cancer [abstract CRA1008]. J Clin Oncol 2013;31:. [Available online at: http://meetinglibrary.asco.org/content/108457-132; cited December 27, 2014]

50. Budd GT, Barlow WE, Moore HCF, et al. First analysis of swog S0221: a phase iii trial comparing chemotherapy schedules in high-risk early breast cancer [abstract 1004]. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:. [Available online at: http://meetinglibrary.asco.org/content/74054-102; cited December 27, 2014]

51. Lee KS, Ro J, Nam BH, et al. A randomized phase-iii trial of docetaxel/capecitabine versus doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide as primary chemotherapy for patients with stage ii/iii breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2008;109:481–9.
cross-ref  

52. Burnell M, Levine MN, Chapman JA, 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.
cross-ref  pmc  

53. Janni W, Harbeck N, Sommer HL, et al. on behalf of the success study group. Sequential treatment with epirubicin/cyclophosphamide, followed by docetaxel versus fec120 in the adjuvant treatment of node-positive breast cancer patients: final survival analysis of the German adebar phase iii study [abstract 1081]. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:. [Available online at: http://meetinglibrary.asco.org/content/96324-114; cited December 27, 2014]

54. Schoenherr A, Kiechle M, Harbeck N, et al. Toxicity analysis of the adebar-trial: sequential anthracycline–taxane compared to fec120 in adjuvant treatment of high risk breast cancer patients [abstract FV-Onko 03.15]. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2010;282(suppl 1):S47.

55. Kerbrat P, Coudert B, Asselain B, et al. Optimal duration of adjuvant chemotherapy for high risk node negative breast cancer patients: 6-year results of the prospective randomized phase iii trial pacs 05 [abstract P1-13-04]. Cancer Res 2012;72(suppl 3):.
cross-ref  

56. Ellis P, Barrett–Lee P, Johnson L, et al. on behalf of the tact trial management group and the tact trialists. Sequential docetaxel as adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer (tact): an open-label, phase iii, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2009;373:1681–92.
cross-ref  pubmed  pmc  

57. Joensuu H, Bono P, Kataja V, et al. Fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide with either docetaxel or vinorelbine, with or without trastuzumab, as adjuvant treatments of breast cancer: final results of the finher trial. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:5685–92.
cross-ref  pubmed  

58. Ladoire S, Mignot G, Dalban C, et al. Foxp3 expression in cancer cells and anthracyclines efficacy in patients with primary breast cancer treated with adjuvant chemo-therapy in the phase iii unicancer-pacs 01 trial. Ann Oncol 2012;23:2552–6.
cross-ref  pubmed  

59. Rastogi P, Anderson SJ, Bear HD, et al. Preoperative chemotherapy: updates of National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocols B-18 and B-27. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:778–85. [Erratum in: J Clin Oncol 2008;26:793]
cross-ref  pubmed  

60. Mamounas EP, Bryant J, Lembersky B, et al. Paclitaxel after doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide as adjuvant chemotherapy for node-positive breast cancer: results from nsabp B-28. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:3686–96.
cross-ref  pubmed  

61. Pusztai L, Jeong J-H, Gong Y, et al. Evaluation of microtubule-associated protein-Tau expression as a prognostic and predictive marker in the nsabp-B 28 randomized clinical trial. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:4287–92.
cross-ref  pubmed  pmc  

62. Vici P, Brandi M, Giotta F, et al. A multicenter phase iii prospective randomized trial of high-dose epirubicin in combination with cyclophosphamide (ec) versus docetaxel followed by ec in node-positive breast cancer. goim (Gruppo Oncologico Italia Meridionale) 9902 study. Ann Oncol 2012;23:1121–9.
cross-ref  pmc  

63. Henderson IC, Berry DA, Demetri GD, et al. 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 2003;21:976–83.
cross-ref  pubmed  

64. Sartor CI, Peterson BL, Woolf S, et al. Effect of addition of adjuvant paclitaxel on radiotherapy delivery and locoregional control of node-positive breast cancer: Cancer and Leukemia Group B 9344. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:30–40.
cross-ref  

65. Hayes DF, Thor AD, Dressler LG, et al. on behalf of the Cancer and Leukemia Group B (calgb) investigators. her2 and response to paclitaxel in node-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2007;357:1496–506.
cross-ref  pubmed  

66. Berry D, Thor A, Jewell SD, et al. Benefits of adding paclitaxel to adjuvant doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide depending on her2 & er status: analysis of tumor tissue microarrays and immunohistochemistry in calgb 9344 (Intergroup 0148) [abstract 606]. Cancer Res 2009;69(suppl):.

67. Lara JF, Thor AD, Dressler LG, et al. on behalf of the Cancer and Leukemia Group B. p53 Expression in node-positive breast cancer patients: results from the Cancer and Leukemia Group B 9344 trial (159905). Clin Cancer Res 2011;17:5170–8.
cross-ref  pubmed  pmc  

68. Cognetti F, De Laurentiis M, De Matteis A, et al. Sequential epirubicin–docetaxel–cmf as adjuvant therapy for node-positive early stage breast cancer: updated results of the taxit216 randomized trial [abstract 1820]. Ann Oncol 2008;19(suppl 8):viii77.

69. Francis P, Crown J, Di Leo A, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy with sequential or concurrent anthracycline and docetaxel: Breast International Group 02-98 randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008;100:121–33. [Erratum in: J Natl Cancer Inst 2008;100:1655]
cross-ref  pubmed  

70. Oakman C, Francis PA, Crown J, et al. Overall survival benefit for sequential doxorubicin–docetaxel compared with concurrent doxorubicin and docetaxel in node-positive breast cancer—8-year results of the Breast International Group 02-98 phase iii trial. Ann Oncol 2013;24:1203–11.
cross-ref  pubmed  

71. Fernandez–Cuesta L, Oakman C, Falagan–Lotsch P, et al. Prognostic and predictive value of TP53 mutations in node-positive breast cancer patients treated with anthracycline- or anthracycline/taxane–based adjuvant therapy: results from the big 02-98 phase iii trial. Breast Cancer Res 2012;14:R70. [Available online at: http://breast-cancer-research.com/content/pdf/bcr3179.pdf; cited July 6, 2012]
cross-ref  

72. Martin M, Ruiz A, Ruiz Borrego M, et al. Fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (fac) versus fac followed by weekly paclitaxel as adjuvant therapy for high-risk, node-negative breast cancer: results from the geicam/2003-02 study. J Clin Oncol 2013;31:2593–9.
cross-ref  

73. Delbaldo C, Serin D, Mousseau M, et al. on behalf of the Association Européenne de Recherche en Oncologie (aero). A phase iii adjuvant randomised trial of 6 cycles of 5-fluorouracil–epirubicine–cyclophosphamide (fec100) versus 4 fec100 followed by 4 Taxol (fec-t) in node positive breast cancer patients (trial B2000). Eur J Cancer 2014;50:23–30.
cross-ref  

74. Martin M, Rodriguez–Lescure A, Ruiz A, et al. on behalf of the geicam 9906 Study Investigators. Randomized phase 3 trial of fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide alone or followed by paclitaxel for early breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008;100:805–14.
cross-ref  pubmed  

75. Martin M, Rodriguez–Lescure A, Ruiz A, et al. Molecular predictors of efficacy of adjuvant weekly paclitaxel in early breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2010;123:149–57.
cross-ref  

76. Fountzilas G, Dafni U, Gogas H, et al. on behalf of the Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group. Postoperative dose-dense sequential chemotherapy with epirubicin, paclitaxel and cmf in patients with high-risk breast cancer: safety analysis of the Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group randomized phase iii trial he 10/00. Ann Oncol 2008;19:853–60.
cross-ref  

77. Gogas H, Dafni U, Karina M, et al. Postoperative dose-dense sequential versus concomitant administration of epirubicin and paclitaxel in patients with node-positive breast cancer: 5-year results of the Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group HE 10/00 phase iii trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012;132:609–19.
cross-ref  

78. Polyzos A, Malamos N, Boukovinas I, et al. 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 2010;119:95–104.
cross-ref  

79. Nitz U, Huober J, Lisboa B, et al. 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 [abstract 78]. Cancer Res 2009;69(suppl):.

80. Huober J, Gluz O, Hartmann A, et al. Evidence for predictive and prognostic impact of molecular classification in taxane-based chemotherapy in intermediate risk breast cancer—an analysis of the wsg ec-doc trial [abstract P2-09-14]. Cancer Res 2010;70:.

81. Nitz U, Gluz O, Liedtke C, et al. Comparison of predictive and prognostic impact of molecular subtypes and central grade regarding taxane-based therapy in intermediate-risk breast cancer: results from the ec-doc trial [abstract 10625]. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:. [Available online at: http://meetinglibrary.asco.org/content/83113-102; cited December 27, 2014]

82. Gluz O, Erber R, Kates R, et al. Predictive value of her2, topoisomerase-ii (Topo-ii) and tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases (timp-1) for efficacy of taxane-based chemotherapy in intermediate risk breast cancer—results from the ec-doc trial [abstract P1-06-03]. Presented as a poster at the 2011 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; San Antonio, TX, U.S.A.; December 6–10, 2011. [Available online at: http://www.abstracts2view.com/sabcs11/view.php?nu=SABCS11L_1495&terms; cited July 16, 2012]

83. Roche H, Fumoleau P, Spielmann M, et al. Sequential adjuvant epirubicin-based and docetaxel chemotherapy for node-positive breast cancer patients: the fnclcc pacs 01 trial. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:5664–71.
cross-ref  

84. Coudert B, Campone M, Spielmann M, et al. Benefit of the sequential administration of docetaxel after standard fec regimen for node-positive breast cancer: long-term follow-up results of the fnclcc-pacs 01 trial [abstract 603]. Cancer Res 2009;69:.
cross-ref  

85. Coudert B, Asselain B, Campone M, et al. Extended benefit from sequential administration of docetaxel after standard fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide regimen for node-positive breast cancer: the 8-year follow-up results of the unicancer-pacs01 trial. Oncologist 2012;17:900–9.
cross-ref  pmc  

86. Penault–Llorca F, Andre F, Sagan C, et al. Ki67 expression and docetaxel efficacy in patients with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:2809–15.
cross-ref  pubmed  

87. Jacquemier J, Boher JM, Roche H, et al. Protein expression, survival and docetaxel benefit in node-positive breast cancer treated with adjuvant chemotherapy in the fnclccpacs 01 randomized trial. Breast Cancer Res 2011;13:R109. [Available online at: http://breast-cancer-research.com/content/13/6/R109; cited March 13, 2012]
cross-ref  

88. Sakr H, Hamed RH, Anter AH, Yossef T. Sequential docetaxel as adjuvant chemotherapy for node-positive or/and T3 or T4 breast cancer: clinical outcome (Mansoura University). Med Oncol 2013;30:457.
cross-ref  pubmed  

89. Coombes RC, Bliss JM, Espie M, et al. Randomized, phase iii trial of sequential epirubicin and docetaxel versus epirubicin alone in postmenopausal patients with node-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:3247–54.
cross-ref  pubmed  

90. Albert JM, Buzdar AU, Guzman R, et al. Prospective randomized trial of 5-fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (fac) versus paclitaxel and fac (tfac) in patients with operable breast cancer: impact of taxane chemotherapy on locoregional control. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2011;128:421–7.
cross-ref  pubmed  

91. Martin M, Pienkowski T, Mackey J, et al. on behalf of the Breast Cancer International Research Group 001 investigators. Adjuvant docetaxel for node-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2005;352:2302–13.
cross-ref  pubmed  

92. Mackey JR, Martin M, Pienkowski T, et al. on behalf of the trio/bcirg 001 investigators. Adjuvant docetaxel, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide in node-positive breast cancer: 10-year follow-up of the phase 3 randomised bcirg 001 trial. Lancet Oncol 2013;14:72–80.
cross-ref  

93. Hugh J, Hanson J, Cheang MC, et al. Breast cancer subtypes and response to docetaxel in node-positive breast cancer: use of an immunohistochemical definition in the bcirg 001 trial. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:1168–76.
cross-ref  pubmed  pmc  

94. Dumontet C, Krajewska M, Treilleux I, et al. bcirg 001 molecular analysis: prognostic factors in node-positive breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. Clin Cancer Res 2010;16:3988–97.
cross-ref  pubmed  

95. Martin M, Segui MA, Anton A, et al. on behalf of the geicam 9805 investigators. Adjuvant docetaxel for high-risk, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2010;363:2200–10.
cross-ref  pubmed  

96. Goldstein LJ, O’Neill A, Sparano JA, et al. Concurrent doxorubicin plus docetaxel is not more effective than concurrent doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide in operable breast cancer with 0 to 3 positive axillary nodes: North American Breast Cancer Intergroup Trial E 2197. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:4092–9.
cross-ref  pubmed  pmc  

97. Sparano JA, O’Neill A, Gray RJ, et al. 10-Year update of E2197: phase iii doxorubicin/docetaxel (at) versus doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (ac) adjuvant treatment of ln+ and high-risk ln–breast cancer and the comparison of the prognostic utility of the 21-gene recurrence score (rs) with clinicopathologic features [abstract 1021]. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:. [Available online at: http://meetinglibrary.asco.org/content/94749-114; cited December 27, 2014]

98. Brain EG, Debled M, Eymard J, et al. Final results of the rapp-01 phase iii trial comparing doxorubicin and docetaxel with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide in the adjuvant treatment of high-risk node negative and limited node positive (≤ 3) breast cancer patients [abstract 4101]. Cancer Res 2009;69(suppl):.
cross-ref  

99. Del Mastro L, Costantini M, Durando A, et al. Cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and 5-fluorouracil versus epirubicin plus paclitaxel in node-positive early breast cancer patients: a randomized, phase iii study of Gruppo Oncologico Nord Ovest–Mammella Intergruppo Group [abstract 516]. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:. [Available online at: http://meeting.ascopubs.org/cgi/content/abstract/26/15_suppl/516; cited December 27, 2014]

100. Roché H, Allouache D, Romieu G, et al. Five-year analysis of the fnclcc-pacs04 trial: fec100 vs ed75 for the adjuvant treatment of node positive breast cancer [abstract 602]. Cancer Res 2009;69(suppl):.

101. Gianni L, Baselga J, Eiermann W, et al. 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 2009;27:2474–81.
cross-ref  pubmed  

102. Zambetti M, Baselga J, Eiermann W, et al. Freedom from progression (ffp) by adding paclitaxel (t) to doxorubicin (a) followed by cmf as adjuvant or primary systemic therapy: 10-yr results of a randomized phase iii European Cooperative Trial in Operable Breast Cancer (ecto) [abstract 537]. J Clin Oncol 2013;31:. [Available online at: http://meetinglibrary.asco.org/content/112868-132; cited December 28, 2014]

103. Jones S, Holmes FA, O’Shaughnessy J, et al. 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 2009;27:1177–83.
cross-ref  pubmed  

104. Shulman LN, Berry DA, Cirrincione CT, et al. Comparison of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide versus single-agent paclitaxel as adjuvant therapy for breast cancer in women with 0 to 3 positive axillary nodes: calgb 40101 (Alliance). J Clin Oncol 2014;32:2311–17.
cross-ref  pubmed  pmc  

105. Shulman LN, Cirrincione CT, Berry DA, et al. Six cycles of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide or paclitaxel are not superior to four cycles as adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer in women with zero to three positive axillary nodes: Cancer and Leukemia Group B 40101. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:4071–6.
cross-ref  pubmed  pmc  

106. Nitz U, Gluz O, Krepe H, et al. First interim toxicity analysis of the randomized phase iii wsg plan B trial comparing 4×ec-4×Doc versus 6×tc in breast cancer patients with her2 negative breast cancer (bc) [abstract P5-18-03]. Cancer Res 2011;71(suppl):.

107. Ortmann U, Salmen J, Hepp PGM, et al. The success-c trial: interim analysis of toxicity evaluating the role of an anthracycline-free chemotherapy regimen in the adjuvant treatment of her2/neu-negative breast cancer [abstract 1070]. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:. [Available online at: http://meetinglibrary.asco.org/content/83477-102; cited December 28, 2014]

108. Mansi JL, Yellowlees A, Lipscombe J, et al. Five-year outcome for women randomised in a phase iii trial comparing doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide with doxorubicin and docetaxel as primary medical therapy in early breast cancer: an Anglo-Celtic Cooperative Oncology Group study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2010;122:787–94.
cross-ref  pubmed  

109. Citron ML, Berry DA, Cirrincione C, 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. [Erratum in: J Clin Oncol 2003;21:226]
cross-ref  pubmed  

110. Loesch D, Greco FA, Senzer NN, et al. Phase iii multicenter trial of doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel compared with doxorubicin plus paclitaxel followed by weekly paclitaxel as adjuvant therapy for women with high-risk breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:2958–65.
cross-ref  pubmed  

111. Swain SM, Jeong JH, Geyer CE Jr, et al. Longer therapy, iatrogenic amenorrhea, and survival in early breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2010;362:2053–65.
cross-ref  pubmed  pmc  

112. Swain SM, Jeong JH, Wolmark N. Amenorrhea from breast cancer therapy—not a matter of dose [letter]. N Engl J Med 2010;363:2268–70.
cross-ref  pubmed  

113. Ganz PA, Land SR, Geyer CE Jr, et al. Menstrual history and quality-of-life outcomes in women with node-positive breast cancer treated with adjuvant therapy on the nsabp B-30 trial. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:1110–16.
cross-ref  pubmed  pmc  

114. Eiermann W, Pienkowski T, Crown J, et al. Phase iii study of doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide with concomitant versus sequential docetaxel as adjuvant treatment in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-normal, node-positive breast cancer: bcirg-005 trial. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:3877–84.
cross-ref  pubmed  

115. Poole CJ, Hiller L, Howard HC, et al. Tango: a randomized phase iii trial of gemcitabine (gem) in paclitaxel-containing, epirubicin/cyclophosphamide-based, adjuvant chemo-therapy (ct) for women with early-stage breast cancer (ebc) [abstract 506]. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:. [Available online at: http://meeting.ascopubs.org/cgi/content/abstract/26/15_suppl/506; cited December 29, 2014]

116. Sparano JA, Wang M, Martino S, et al. Weekly paclitaxel in the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2008;358:1663–71. [Errata in: N Engl J Med 2008;359:106; and N Engl J Med 2009;360:1685]
cross-ref  pubmed  pmc  

117. Schneider BP, Zhao F, Wang M, et al. Neuropathy is not associated with clinical outcomes in patients receiving adjuvant taxane-containing therapy for operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:3051–7.
cross-ref  pubmed  pmc  

118. Watanabe T, Kuranami M, Inoue K, et al. Phase iii two by two factorial comparison of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by a taxane vs. a taxane alone, and paclitaxel vs. docetaxel in operable node positive breast cancer—results of the first interim analysis of nsasbc02 trial [abstract 4103] Cancer Res 2009;69:. [Poster available at: http://www.csp.or.jp/cspor/company/results/N-SAS%20BC02poster%2020081206.pdf; cited August 2012]
cross-ref  

119. Shiroiwa T, Fukuda T, Shimozuma K, et al. Comparison of eq-5D scores among anthracycline-containing regimens followed by taxane and taxane-only regimens for node-positive breast cancer patients after surgery: the n-sas bc 02 trial. Value Health 2011;14:746–51.
cross-ref  pubmed  

120. Shimozuma K, Ohashi Y, Takeuchi A, et al. Taxane-induced peripheral neuropathy and health-related quality of life in postoperative breast cancer patients undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy: n-sas BC 02, a randomized clinical trial. Support Care Cancer 2012;20:3355–64.
cross-ref  pubmed  

121. Swain SM, Tang G, Geyer CE, et al. nsabp B-38: definitive analysis of a randomized adjuvant trial comparing dose-dense (dd) ac → paclitaxel (p) plus gemcitabine (g) with dd acp and with docetaxel, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (tac) in women with operable, node-positive breast cancer [abstract LBA1000]. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:. [Available online at: http://meetinglibrary.asco.org/content/98794-114; cited December 29, 2014]

122. Swain SM, Tang G, Geyer CE Jr, et al. Definitive results of a phase iii adjuvant trial comparing three chemotherapy regimens in women with operable, node-positive breast cancer: the nsabp B-38 trial. J Clin Oncol 2013;31:3197–204.
cross-ref  pubmed  pmc  

123. Moebus V, Jackisch C, Lueck HJ, et al. Intense dose-dense sequential chemotherapy with epirubicin, paclitaxel, and cyclophosphamide compared with conventionally scheduled chemotherapy in high-risk primary breast cancer: mature results of an ago phase iii study. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:2874–80.
cross-ref  pubmed  

124. Moebus V, Thomssen C, Lueck H, et al. Intense dose-dense (idd) sequential chemotherapy with epirubicin (e), paclitaxel (t), and cyclophosphamide (c) (etc) compared with conventionally scheduled chemotherapy in high-risk breast cancer patients (>3+ln): eight-year follow-up analysis [abstract 1018]. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:. [Available online at: http://meetinglibrary.asco.org/content/81571-102; cited December 29, 2014]

125. Kelly CM, Green MC, Broglio K, et al. Phase iii trial evaluating weekly paclitaxel versus docetaxel in combination with capecitabine in operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:930–5.
cross-ref  pubmed  

126. Hofmann D, Nitz U, Gluz O, et al. wsg adapt—adjuvant dynamic marker-adjusted personalized therapy trial optimizing risk assessment and therapy response prediction in early breast cancer: study protocol for a prospective, multi-center, controlled, non-blinded, randomized, investigator initiated phase ii/iii trial. Trials 2013;14:261. [Available online at: http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/14/1/261; cited July 16, 2014]
cross-ref  

127. Untch M, von Minckwitz G, Konecny GE, et al. prepare trial: a randomized phase iii trial comparing preoperative, dose-dense, dose-intensified chemotherapy with epirubicin, paclitaxel, and cmf versus a standard-dosed epirubicin–cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel with or without darbepoetin alfa in primary breast cancer—outcome on prognosis. Ann Oncol 2011;22:1999–2006.
cross-ref  pubmed  

128. Untch M, Fasching PA, Konecny GE, et al. on behalf of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie prepare investigators. prepare trial: a randomized phase iii trial comparing preoperative, dose-dense, dose-intensified chemotherapy with epirubicin, paclitaxel and cmf versus a standard-dosed epirubicin/cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel ± darbepoetin alfa in primary breast cancer—results at the time of surgery. Ann Oncol 2011;22:1988–98.
cross-ref  pubmed  

129. Kaufmann M, Eiermann W, Schuette M, et al. Long-term results from the neoadjuvant GeparDuo trial: a randomized, multicenter, open phase iii study comparing a dose-intensified 8-week schedule of doxorubicin hydrochloride and docetaxel (adoc) with a sequential 24-week schedule of doxorubicin hydrochloride/cyclophosphamide followed by docetaxel (acdoc) regimen as preoperative therapy (nact) in patients (pts) with operable breast cancer (bc) [abstract 537]. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:. [Available online at: http://meetinglibrary.asco.org/content/43877-74; cited December 29, 2014; poster also available at: http://www.germanbreastgroup.de/en/publications.html; cited July 6, 2012]

130. Darb–Esfahani S, Loibl S, Muller BM, et al. Identification of biology-based breast cancer types with distinct predictive and prognostic features: role of steroid hormone and her2 receptor expression in patients treated with neoadjuvant anthracycline/taxane-based chemotherapy. Breast Cancer Res 2009;11:R69.
cross-ref  

131. Untch M, Mobus V, Kuhn W, et al. Intensive dose-dense compared with conventionally scheduled preoperative chemotherapy for high-risk primary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:2938–45.
cross-ref  pubmed  

132. Evans TRJ, Yellowlees A, Foster E, et al. Phase iii randomized trial of doxorubicin and docetaxel versus doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide as primary medical therapy in women with breast cancer: an Anglo-Celtic Cooperative Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:2988–95.
cross-ref  pubmed  

133. von Minckwitz G, Blohmer JU, Costa SD, et al. Response-guided neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2013;31:3623–30.
cross-ref  pubmed  

134. Von Minckwitz G, Schmitt WD, Loibl S, et al. Ki67 measured after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for primary breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2013;19:4521–31.
cross-ref  pubmed  

135. von Minckwitz G, Kummel S, Vogel P, et al. on behalf of the German Breast Group. Neoadjuvant vinorelbine–capecitabine versus docetaxel–doxorubicin–cyclophosphamide in early nonresponsive breast cancer: phase iii randomized GeparTrio trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008;100:542–51.
cross-ref  pubmed  

136. von Minckwitz G, Kummel S, Vogel P, et al. on behalf of the German Breast Group. Intensified neoadjuvant chemotherapy in early-responding breast cancer: phase iii randomized GeparTrio study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008;100:552–62.
cross-ref  pubmed  

137. Members of the Breast Cancer Disease Site Group. Use of Bisphosphonates in Women with Breast Cancer. Evidence-based series 1–11. Ver. 2.2002. Toronto, ON: Cancer Care Ontario; 2012. [Available online at: https://www.cancercare.on.ca/common/pages/UserFile.aspx?fileId=34182; cited October 15, 2012]

138. Coleman R, Gnant M, Paterson A, et al. Effects of bisphosphonate treatment on recurrence and cause-specific mortality in women with early breast cancer: a meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomised trials [abstract S4-07]. Cancer Res 2013;73(suppl):.
cross-ref  

139. Cameron D, Brown J, Dent R, et al. Adjuvant bevacizumab-containing therapy in triple-negative breast cancer (beatrice): primary results of a randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2013;14:933–42.
cross-ref  pubmed  

140. Earl HM, Blenkinsop C, Grybowicz L, et al. artemis: randomized trial with neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients with early breast cancer [abstract TPS1144]. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:. [Available online at: http://meetinglibrary.asco.org/content/98025-114; cited December 29, 2014]
cross-ref  

141. Earl HM, Hiller L, Blenkinsop C, et al. artemis: a randomised trial of bevacizumab with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nact) for patients with her2-negative early breast cancer—primary endpoint, pathological complete response (pcr) [abstract 1014]. J Clin Oncol 2014;32:. [Available online at: http://meetinglibrary.asco.org/content/93667; cited December 29, 2014]

142. Parulekar W, Chen BE, Elliott C, et al. A phase iii randomized trial of metformin versus placebo on recurrence and survival in early-stage breast cancer (bc) (ncic Clinical Trials Group ma.32) [abstract TPS103]. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:. [Available online at: http://meetinglibrary.asco.org/content/82573-102; cited December 29, 2014]

143. Moore HCF, Unger JM, Phillips KA, et al. Phase iii trial (Prevention of Early Menopause Study [poems]-swog S0230) of lhrh analog during chemotherapy (ct) to reduce ovarian failure in early-stage, hormone receptor-negative breast cancer: an international Intergroup trial of swog, ibcsg, ecog, and calgb (Alliance) [abstract LBA505]. J Clin Oncol 2014;32:. [Available online at: http://meetinglibrary.asco.org/content/129172-144; cited December 29, 2014]

144. Mulcahy N. Practice changing: drug preserves fertility during chemo [online news article]. Medscape Multispecialty from WebMD; May 30, 2014. [Available online at: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/825989; cited July 21, 2014]

145. Mittendorf EA, Schneble EJ, Perez SA, et al. Primary analysis of the prospective, randomized, single-blinded phase ii trial of AE37 vaccine versus gm-csf alone administered in the adjuvant setting to high-risk breast cancer patients [abstract 638]. J Clin Oncol 2014;32:. [Available online at: http://meetinglibrary.asco.org/content/133001-144; cited December 29, 2014]

146. Vreeland TJ, Clifton GT, Hale DF, et al. Final results of the phase i/ii trials of the E75 adjuvant breast cancer vaccine [abstract P5-16-02]. Cancer Res 2012;72(suppl). [Available online at: http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/72/24_Supplement/P5-16-02; cited January 19, 2015]
cross-ref  

147. Mittendorf EA, Clifton GT, Holmes JP, et al. Final report of the phase i/ii clinical trial of the E75 (nelipepimut-S) vaccine with booster inoculations to prevent disease recurrence in high-risk breast cancer patients. Ann Oncol 2014;25:1735–42.
cross-ref  pubmed  pmc  


Correspondence to: Sonal Gandhi, Sunnybrook Health Sciences, 2075 Bayview Ave, T Wing, T2-037, Toronto, Ontario M4N 3M5. E-mail: sonal.gandhi@sunnybrook.ca

(Return to Top)


The complete version of this guideline will be posted on the Cancer Care Ontario Web site at https://www.cancercare.on.ca/toolbox/qualityguidelines/diseasesite/breast-ebs/.

Supplemental material available at http://www.current-oncology.com.


Current Oncology , VOLUME 22 , Supplement 1 , March 2015








Copyright © 2017 Multimed Inc.
ISSN: 1198-0052 (Print) ISSN: 1718-7729 (Online)