CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2017; 77(10): 1079-1087
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-119542
GebFra Science
Review/Übersicht
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Assessing the Clinical Benefit of Systemic Adjuvant Therapies for Early Breast Cancer

Article in several languages: English | deutsch
Volker Möbus
1   Klinik für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe, Klinikum Frankfurt-Höchst, Frankfurt, Germany
,
Susanne Hell
2   Roche Pharma AG, Grenzach-Wyhlen, Germany
,
Marcus Schmidt
3   Klinik und Poliklinik für Geburtshilfe und Frauengesundheit, Universitätsmedizin Mainz, Mainz, Germany
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

received 08 June 2017
revised 08 September 2017

accepted 11 September 2017

Publication Date:
26 October 2017 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Oncologic therapy is currently undergoing significant changes. A number of innovative targeted medications currently in clinical development have raised high expectations. With that in mind, discussions about terms such as “clinical benefit” and “clinical relevance” are highly topical. This also applies to further developments in the field of adjuvant systemic therapies for early-stage breast cancer. As the treatment aim is curative, assessment of the clinical benefit of adjuvant therapies must be largely based on efficacy outcomes. The focus must be on improving disease-free survival rates and lowering the risk of recurrence. Because of the current low mortality rates, statements about overall survival rates are only possible after very long observation periods. Consequently, new drugs in adjuvant therapies should be considered as offering a clinical benefit, if they reduce the risk of recurrence below current low levels of risk. The evidence for established adjuvant therapy standards in early-stage breast cancer can be used as objective criteria for comparison. This review article considers the requirements for clinical benefit of new adjuvant therapies for early breast cancer, based on examples from adjuvant endocrine therapy, adjuvant polychemotherapy and adjuvant anti-HER2 therapy.

Key words

early breast cancer - adjuvant therapy - clinical benefit
 

  • References/Literatur

  • 1 Schnipper LE, Davidson NE, Wollins DS. et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology statement: a conceptual framework to assess the value of cancer treatment options. J Clin Oncol 2015; 33: 2563-2577
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Cherny NI, Sullivan R, Dafni U. et al. A standardised, generic, validated approach to stratify the magnitude of clinical benefit that can be anticipated from anti-cancer therapies: the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). Ann Oncol 2015; 26: 1547-1573
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Chan A, Delaloge S, Holmes FA. et al. Neratinib after trastuzumab-based adjuvant therapy in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer (ExteNET): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2016; 17: 367-377
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Von Minckwitz G, Procter MJ, De Azambuja E. et al. Adjuvant pertuzumab and trastuzumab in early HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2017; 377: 122-131
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Clinicaltrial.gov. NCT02513394. Online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02513394?term=palbociclib+adjuvant&cond=breast+cancer&rank=1 last access: 16.08.2017
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Clinicaltrial.gov. NCT03078751. Online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03078751?term=ribociclib+adjuvant&cond=breast+cancer&rank=1 last access: 16.08.2017
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Clinicaltrial.gov. NCT03081234. Online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03081234?term=ribociclib+adjuvant&cond=breast+cancer&rank=2 last access: 16.08.2017
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Clinicaltrial.gov. NCT03155997. Online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03155997?term=abemaciclib+adjuvant&cond=breast+cancer&rank=1 last access: 16.08.2017
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Clinicaltrial.gov. NCT02954874. Online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02954874?term=pembrolizumab+adjuvant&cond=breast+cancer&rank=2 last access: 16.08.2017
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Clinicaltrial.gov. NCT03036488. Online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03036488?term=pembrolizumab+adjuvant&cond=breast+cancer&rank=1 last access: 16.08.2017
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Clinicaltrial.gov. NCT02926196. Online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02926196?term=avelumab+adjuvant&cond=breast+cancer&rank=1 last access: 16.08.2017
    Google Scholar
  • 12 FDA Guidance for industry: cinical trial endpoints for the approval of cancer drugs and biologicals, May 2007. Online: https://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugsGuidanceComplianceRegulatoyInformation/Guidance/UCM071590.pdf last access: 16.08.2017
    Google Scholar
  • 13 EMA Guideline on the evaluation of anticancer medicinal products in man, December 2012. Online: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2013/01/WC500137128.pdf last access: 16.08.2017
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Goldhirsch A, Winer EP, Coates AS. et al. Personalizing the treatment of women with early breast cancer: highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2013. Ann Oncol 2013; 24: 2206-2223
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Coates AS, Winer EP, Goldhirsch A. et al. Tailoring therapies – improving the management of early breast cancer: St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2015. Ann Oncol 2015; 26: 1533-1546
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Senkus E, Kyriakides S, Ohno S. et al. Primary breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2015; 26 (Suppl. 05) v8-v30
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft e.V. (DKG). Interdisziplinäre S3-Leitlinie für die Diagnostik, Therapie und Nachsorge des Mammakarzinoms. Langversion 3.0, Aktualisierung 2012. AWMF-Register-Nummer: 032 · 045OL [online]. Stand: 07.2012. Online: http://www.awmf.org/leitlinien/detail/ll/032-045OL.html last access: 16.08.2017
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie e.V. (AGO). Diagnostik und Therapie von Patientinnen mit primärem und metastasiertem Brustkrebs [online]. Stand: 02.03.2017. Online: http://www.ago-online.de/fileadmin/downloads/leitlinien/mamma/2017-03/AGO_deutsch/PDF_Gesamtdatei_deutsch/Alle_aktuellen_Empfehlungen_2017.pdf last access: 16.08.2017
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Deutsche Gesellschaft für Hämatologie und Medizinische Onkologie e.V. (DGHO). Mammakarzinom der Frau. Leitlinie [online]. Stand: 04.2017. Online: https://www.onkopedia.com/de/onkopedia/guidelines/mammakarzinom-der-frau/@@view/html/index.html last access: 16.08.2017
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Mieog JS, van der Hage JA, van de Velde CJ. Preoperative chemotherapy for women with operable breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007; (02) CD005002
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Mauri D, Pavlidis N, Ioannidis JP. Neoadjuvant versus adjuvant systemic treatment in breast cancer: a meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005; 97: 188-194
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Robert Koch-Institut. Bericht zum Krebsgeschehen in Deutschland 2016. Online: http://www.krebsdaten.de/Krebs/DE/Content/Publikationen/Krebsgeschehen/Krebsgeschehen_download.pdf?__blob=publicationFile last access: 16.08.2017
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Moja L, Tagliabue L, Balduzzi S. et al. Trastuzumab containing regimens for early breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; (04) CD006243
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Cameron D, Piccart-Gebhart MJ, Gelber RD. et al. 11 yearsʼ follow-up of trastuzumab after adjuvant chemotherapy in HER2-positive early breast cancer: final analysis of the HERceptin Adjuvant (HERA) trial. Lancet 2017; 389: 1195-1205
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Perez EA, Romond EH, Suman VJ. et al. Trastuzumab plus adjuvant chemotherapy for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast cancer: planned joint analysis of overall survival from NSABP B-31 and NCCTG N9831. J Clin Oncol 2014; 32: 3744-3752
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Slamon DJ, Eiermann W, Robert NJ. et al. Ten year follow-up of BCIRG-006 comparing doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide followed by docetaxel (AC→T) with doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide followed by docetaxel and trastuzumab (AC→TH) with docetaxel, carboplatin and trastuzumab (TCH) in HER2+ early breast cancer. SABCS 2015; Abstr. S5-04.
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Roche data on file.
    Google Scholar
  • 28 Early Breast Cancer Trialist Collaborative Group. Tamoxifen for early breast cancer: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet 1998; 351: 1451-1467
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Early Breast Cancer Trialist Collaborative Group. Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomized trials. Lancet 2005; 365: 1687-1717
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Early Breast Cancer Trialist Collaborative Group. Aromatase inhibitors versus tamoxifen in early breast cancer: patient-level meta-analysis of the randomized trials. Lancet 2015; 386: 1341-1352
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Aydiner A. Meta-analysis of breast cancer outcome and toxicity in adjuvant trials of aromatase inhibitors in postmenopausal women. Breast 2013; 22: 121-129
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Early Breast Cancer Trialist 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: 432-444
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Bonnadonna G, Brusamolino E, Valgussa P. et al. Combination chemotherapy as an adjuvant treatment in operable breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1976; 294: 405-410
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Bria E, Nistico C, Cuppone F. et al. Benefit of taxanes as adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer: pooled analysis of 15,500 patients. Cancer 2006; 106: 2337-2344
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Ferguson T, Wilcken N, Vagg R. et al. Taxanes for adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007; (04) CD004421
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 De Laurentiis M, Cancello G, DʼAgostino D. et al. Taxane-based combinations as adjuvant chemotherapy of early breast cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 44-53
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Jacquin JP, Jones S, Magné N. et al. Docetaxel-containing adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with early stage breast cancer. Consistency of effect independent of nodal and biomarker status: a meta-analysis of 14 randomized clinical trials. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012; 134: 903-913
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Qin YY, Li H, Guo XJ. et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy, with or without taxanes, in early or operable breast cancer: a meta-analysis of 19 randomized trials with 30698 patients. PLoS One 2011; 6: e26946
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Viani GA, Afonso SL, Stefano EJ. et al. Adjuvant trastuzumab in the treatment of her-2-positive early breast cancer: a meta-analysis of published randomized trials. BMC Cancer 2007; 7: 153
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Dahabreh IJ, Linardou H, Siannis F. et al. Trastuzumab in the adjuvant treatment of early-stage breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Oncologist 2008; 13: 620-630
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Yin W, Jiang Y, Shen Z. et al. Trastuzumab in the adjuvant treatment of HER2-positive early breast cancer patients: a meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials. PLoS One 2011; 6: e21030
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Jackisch C, Piccart MJ, Gelber RD. et al. HERA trial: 10 years follow up of trastuzumab after adjuvant chemotherapy in HER2 positive early breast cancer – Final analysis. SABCS 2015; Abstr. PD5-01.
    Google Scholar
  • 43 Slamon D, Eiermann W, Robert N. et al. Adjuvant trastuzumab in HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2011; 365: 1273-1283
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Bonilla L, Ben-Aharon I, Vidal L. et al. Dose-dense chemotherapy in nonmetastatic breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010; 102: 1845-1854
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Lemos Duarte I, da Silveira Nogueira Lima JP, Passos Lima CS. et al. Dose-dense chemotherapy versus conventional chemotherapy for early breast cancer: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Breast 2012; 21: 343-349
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Petrelli F, Cabiddu M, Coinu A. et al. Adjuvant dose-dense chemotherapy in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2015; 151: 251-259
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Möbus V. Adjuvant dose-dense chemotherapy in breast cancer: standard of care in high-risk patients. Breast Care (Basel) 2016; 11: 8-12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 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: 2874-2880
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Moebus V, Jackisch C, Lueck HJ. et al. Ten-year follow-up analysis of intense dose-dense adjuvant ETC (epirubicin (E), paclitaxel (T) and cyclophosphamide (C) confirms superior DFS and OS benefit in comparison to conventional dosed chemotherapy in high-risk breast cancer patients with ≥ 4 positive lymph nodes. SABCS 2012; Abstr. S3-04.
    Google Scholar
  • 50 Tolaney SM, Barry WT, Guo H. et al. Seven-year (yr) follow-up of adjuvant paclitaxel (T) and trastuzumab (H) (APT trial) for node-negative, HER2-positive breast cancer (BC). J Clin Oncol 2017; 35 (no. 15_suppl): 511
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Schmidt M, Thomssen C, Untch M. Intrinsic subtypes of primary breast cancer–gene expression analysis. Oncol Res Treat 2016; 39: 102-110
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Filipits M, Rudas M, Jakesz R. et al. A new molecular predictor of distant recurrence in ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer adds independent information to conventional clinical risk factors. Clin Cancer Res 2011; 17: 6012-6020
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Dubsky P, Brase JC, Jakesz R. et al. The EndoPredict score provides prognostic information on late distant metastases in ER+/HER2- breast cancer patients. Br J Cancer 2013; 109: 2959-2964
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Dubsky P, Filipits M, Jakesz R. et al. EndoPredict improves the prognostic classification derived from common clinical guidelines in ER-positive, HER2-negative early breast cancer. Ann Oncol 2013; 24: 640-647
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Martin M, Brase JC, Calvo L. et al. Clinical validation of the EndoPredict test in node-positive, chemotherapy-treated ER+/HER2- breast cancer patients: results from the GEICAM 9906 trial. Breast Cancer Res 2014; 16: R38
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Paik S, Shak S, Tang G. et al. A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2004; 351: 2817-2826
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Paik S, Tang G, Shak S. et al. Gene expression and benefit of chemotherapy in women with node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24: 3726-3734
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Albain KS, Barlow WE, Shak S. et al. Prognostic and predictive value of the 21-gene recurrence score assay in 16 postmenopausal women with node-positive, oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer on 17 chemotherapy: a retrospective analysis of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 2010; 11: 55-65
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Sgroi DC, Sestak I, Cuzick J. et al. Prediction of late distant recurrence in patients with oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer: a prospective comparison of the breast-cancer index (BCI) assay, 21-gene recurrence score, and IHC4 in the TransATAC study population. Lancet Oncol 2013; 14: 1067-1076
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Wolmark N, Mamounas EP, Baehner FL. et al. Prognostic impact of the combination of recurrence score and quantitative estrogen receptor expression (ESR1) on predicting late distant recurrence risk in estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer after 5 years of tamoxifen: results from NRG Oncology/National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-28 and B-14. J Clin Oncol 2016; 34: 2350-2358
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Martin M, Rodríguez-Lescure A, Caballero R. et al. PAM50 proliferation score as a predictor of weekly paclitaxel benefit in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2013; 138: 457-466
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Filipits M, Nielsen TO, Rudas M. et al. The PAM50 risk-of-recurrence score predicts risk for late distant recurrence after endocrine therapy in postmenopausal women with endocrine-responsive early breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2014; 20: 1298-1305
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Gnant M, Filipits M, Greil R. et al. Predicting distant recurrence in receptor-positive breast cancer patients with limited clinicopathological risk: using the PAM50 Risk of Recurrence score in 1478 postmenopausal patients of the ABCSG-8 trial treated with adjuvant endocrine therapy alone. Ann Oncol 2014; 25: 339-345
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Gnant M, Sestak I, Filipits M. et al. Identifying clinically relevant prognostic subgroups of postmenopausal women with node-positive hormone receptor-positive early-stage breast cancer treated with endocrine therapy: a combined analysis of ABCSG-8 and ATAC using the PAM50 risk of recurrence score and intrinsic subtype. Ann Oncol 2015; 26: 1685-1691
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Gluz O, Nitz UA, Christgen M. et al. West German Study Group Phase III PlanB Trial: first prospective outcome data for the 21-gene recurrence score assay and concordance of prognostic markers by central and local pathology assessment. J Clin Oncol 2016; 34: 2341-2349
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Sparano JA, Gray RJ, Makower DF. et al. Prospective validation of a 21-gene expression assay in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2015; 373: 2005-2014
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Cardoso F, vanʼt Veer LJ, Bogaerts J. et al. 70-gene signature as an aid to treatment decisions in early-stage breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2016; 375: 717-729
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence NICE. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013, published date: April 2013. Online: https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9/chapter/foreword last access: 16.08.2017
    Google Scholar
  • 69 Haute Authorité de Santé. Methods and criteria for assessing medicinal products. Stand Oktober 2015 Online: https://www.has-sante.fr/portail/jcms/c_2035651/en/methods-and-criteria-for-assessing-medicinal-products last access: 16.08.2017
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen. Allgemeine Methode, Version 5.0 vom 10.07.2017. Online: https://www.iqwig.de/download/Allgemeine-Methoden_Version-5-0.pdf last access: 16.08.2017
    Google Scholar
  • 71 Deutsche Gesellschaft für Hämatologie und Onkologie (DGHO). Frühe Nutzenbewertung onkologischer Arzneimittel: Diskussionspapier der DGHO zu den Fragen des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses anlässlich der Diskussionsrunde am 29. November 2010. Online: https://www.g-ba.de/downloads/17-98-3003/DGHO.pdf last access: 16.08.2017
    Google Scholar
  • 72 Gill S, Sargent D. End points for adjuvant therapy trials: has the time come to accept disease-free survival as a surrogate end point for overall survival?. Oncologist 2006; 11: 624-629
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 73 European Medicines Agency (EMA). Medical assessment report for Taxotere vom 20.05.2010, Doc. Ref No.: EMA/355802/2010. Stand: 20.05.2010. Online: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Assessment_Report_-_Variation/human/000073/WC500095365.pdf last access: 16.08.2017
    Google Scholar
  • 74 Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Medical Review Arimidex (anastrozole) ZD1033, NDA Number: 20,541, Efficacy Supplement Clinical Review vom 28. August 2002. Stand: 28.08.2002. Online: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2002/20-541S010_Arimidex_medr_P1.pdf last access: 31.03.2017
    Google Scholar
  • 75 Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Medical Review Taxotere (Docetaxel) sNDA Numer 20,449 Efficacy Supplement Clinical Review vom 17. August 2004. Stand: 17.08.2004. Online: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2004/20-449s029_Taxotere_medr.PDF last access: 16.08.2017
    Google Scholar
  • 76 Thiel FC, Schrauder MG, Fasching PA. et al. Shared decision-making in breast cancer: discrepancy between the treatment efficacy required by patients and by physicians. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012; 135: 811-820
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar