Key words adjuvant chemotherapy - gemcitabine - toxicity - hematological - breast cancer
Schlüsselwörter adjuvante Chemotherapie - Gemcitabin - Toxizität - hämatologisch - Brustkrebs
Introduction
Although adjuvant chemotherapy with anthracyclines and taxanes reduces mortality and
the risk of recurrence for patients with high-risk breast cancer, such treatment is
often associated with life-threatening side effects [1 ], [2 ], [3 ], [4 ], [5 ], [6 ]. Anthracyclines are known for their cardiotoxicity [7 ], [8 ], [9 ]. Other common side effects of anthracyclines are myelosuppression, febrile neutropenia,
mucositis, nausea, vomiting and alopecia [10 ]. Common side effects of taxanes are neutropenia, anemia, neurological symptoms,
stomatitis and dermal afflictions [11 ], [12 ].
Gemcitabine is a pyrimidine analogue antimetabolite drug that has been used as an
alternative in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer [13 ], [14 ], [15 ]. It is known as an option for combination therapy because of its mechanism of action,
toxicity profile, additive or synergistic activity in vitro and a lack of cardiotoxicity.
Drug combinations with vinorelbine, cisplatin, 5-fluorouracil, taxanes and anthracyclines
have yielded overall response rates of 58 to 92 % as a first-line treatment [16 ], [17 ]. It is profitable for pretreated anthracycline and/or taxane resistant breast cancer
patients [18 ], [19 ]. It is used in cases of local relapse after neoadjuvant chemotherapy [20 ], [21 ]. The hematological toxicity of gemcitabine includes leukopenia, anemia and thrombocytopenia.
Non-hematological side effects are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, obstipation, mucositis
and loss of appetite. Other side effects are transaminitis, alkaline phosphatase and
bilirubin elevation. Respiratory complications include dyspnea, bronchospasm and interstitial
pneumonitis [22 ], [23 ], [24 ].
This study aims to focus in detail on the evaluation of the toxicity profile of adding
gemcitabine to taxane-based therapeutic regimens.
Patients and Methods
Eligibility criteria
Eligible women had operable breast cancer with clear surgical margins (R0), metastases
to the axillary nodes or were node negative with a high-risk profile (> pT2, G3, age
< 35 years, negative hormonal receptors). Surgical treatment was either mastectomy
or lumpectomy with sentinel lymph node biopsy and with or without axillary dissection.
Patients with all molecular breast cancer subtypes were eligible (luminal A, luminal
B, HER-2 subtype, triple negative). Radiotherapy was applied after breast-conserving
surgery or at high risk of local recurrence. Chemotherapy was started at least six
weeks after surgery. Patients were required to provide written informed consent before
being registered.
Inclusion criteria were an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status
< 2, white blood cell count (WBC) ≥ 3.0 × 109 /l, platelet count ≥ 100 × 109 /l, bilirubin levels within normal range and transaminase and alkaline phosphatase
levels within 1.5 of the upper limit of normal as measured by the referring laboratory.
Patients were required to be free of metastasis as evaluated by chest x-ray, bone
scintigraphy and liver ultrasound. In premenopausal women a pregnancy test was obligatory.
The study was approved on 25.08.2005 by 37 German ethical boards (lead ethical board:
Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich) and conducted in accordance with the Declaration
of Helsinki.
Study design
The SUCCESS-A study (clinical trial.gov registration ID NCT02181101; EudraCT 2005–000490-21)
is an open-label, prospective, randomized, controlled Phase III study comparing disease-free
survival of high-risk early breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant sequential cyclophosphamide/taxane-based
chemotherapy with or without gemcitabine (first randomization), and disease-free survival
of patients receiving 2 years vs. 5 years of zoledronic acid treatment (second randomization;
see [Fig. 1 ] for the complete study design and supplement for CONSORT statement).
Fig. 1 Study design of the randomized SUCCESS-A trial.
Treatment regimens
All patients first received three full cycles of epirubicin (100 mg/m2 )-fluorouracil (500 mg/m2 )-cyclophosphamide (500 mg/m2 ) (FEC) chemotherapy, followed by either three cycles of full-dose docetaxel (100 mg/m2 ; D) for patients in the FEC-D arm or 3 cycles of gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 d1, d8) and dose-reduced docetaxel (75 mg/m2 , d1) (DG) for patients in the FEC-DG arm. After the completion of chemotherapy, the
patients were further randomized to receive either 2 years of zoledronic acid treatment
(4 mg i. v. every 3 months) or 5 years of zoledronic acid treatment (4 mg i. v. every
3 months for two years, followed by 4 mg i. v. every 6 months for the duration of
additional three years). During the zoledronic acid treatment period, patients received
daily 500 mg calcium p. o. and 400 IE vitamin D p. o.
Patients with positive hormone receptor status (≥ 10 % positively stained cells for
estrogen and/or progesterone) of the primary tumor received tamoxifen treatment 20 mg
p. o. per day for 2 years, after the end of chemotherapy. Subsequent to chemotherapy,
postmenopausal patients with positive hormone receptor status were treated with anastrozole
1 mg p. o. for additional 3 years; premenopausal patients continued tamoxifen treatment
for additional 3 years. In addition to tamoxifen, all patients with positive hormone
receptor status of the primary tumor and under the age of 40 or restart of menstrual
bleeding within 6 months after the completion of cytostatic treatment or with premenopausal
hormone levels (luteinizing hormone [LH] < 20 mIE/ml, follicle stimulating hormone
[FSH] < 20 mIE/ml and estradiol [E2] > 20 pg/ml) received goserelin 3.6 mg subcutaneously
every 4 weeks over a period of 2 years following chemotherapy. In patients with clearly
HER-2 overexpressing tumors (immunohistochemistry score 3+ or fluorescent in situ
hybridization [FISH] positive) therapy with trastuzumab was applied for a period of
one year every three weeks after the completion of chemo- and radiotherapy (dosage:
8 mg/kg loading dose followed by 6 mg/kg body weight).
To decrease toxicity, dexamethasone, 2-mercaptoethanesulfonate-sodium (mesna), and
5-HT-3-antagonists were provided. To guarantee the maximal blockage of receptors,
the 5-HT-3-antagonist was administered intravenously 15 minutes before the initial
cytostatic agent was given. To increase the patientsʼ tolerance of cytotoxic agents
and the efficacy of 5-HT3-receptor-antagonists, dexamethasone was provided at a dose
of 8 mg i. v. before every chemotherapy application. Moreover during cycle 4–6 dexamethasone
was provided at a dose of 8 mg p. o. in the evening after chemotherapy and in the
morning and evening before and after the day of chemotherapy. To prevent hemorrhagic
cystitis during cyclophosphamide therapy, the bladder protectant mesna and adequate
hydration were provided.
Supportive measures were taken according to the study protocol. No upfront granulocyte
colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) support was provided. G-CSF at a dose of 34 million
IU/d was provided as a secondary prophylaxis on days 5 to 10 or until leukocyte levels
were normal to patients with febrile neutropenia (i.e., temperature > 38.5 °C, absolute
neutrophil count [ANC] < 0.5 × 109 /l, requiring hospitalization and intravenous antibiotics), isolated neutropenia (ANC
< 0.5 × 109 /l, > five days), severe neutropenia (ANC < 0.1 × 109 /l) and any cases in which leukopenia led to the postponement of treatment cycles.
Once one of these criteria were met, in all subsequent cycles a secondary prophylactic
G-CSF administration at a dose of 34 million IU/d was provided from day 5 to day 10,
or until the number of leukocytes had exceeded the nadir of 5000/ul.
Facultative prophylactic antibiotic therapy with oral fluoroquinolones (e.g. ciprofloxacin
500 mg, p. o., 2×/d, levofloxacin 500 mg, p. o., 1×/d) was offered to patients with
grade 3 and 4 neutropenia. Antibiotic prophylaxis was recommended to patients with
a neutrophil granulocyte cell count (ANC) of less than 0.5 × 109 /l. Once started, facultative antibiotic therapy and antibiotic prophylaxis were provided
until the requirements for resuming chemotherapy were met (ANC ≥ 1.5 × 109 /l or WBC ≥ 3.0 × 109 /l). Patients with febrile neutropenia were assessed according to their NCI score
(Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events of the National Cancer Institute,
CTCAE V2.0). Patients with febrile neutropenia (> 38.0 °C) were hospitalized for isolation,
empiric i. v. antibiotic therapy and diagnostic workup. During febrile neutropenia
the duration of antibiotic therapy was dependent on the individual course of disease
and the secondary complications.
Chemotherapy cycles could be delayed for a maximum of two weeks. This also applied
to gemcitabine (d1 and d8). If the eighth day in a cycle was delayed for less than
a week, the subsequent cycle was administered according to the therapy protocol. If
the treatment was delayed one week or longer, the next cycle was not administered
according to the study protocol date, but two weeks after the date of the delayed
administration. The requirements for resuming chemotherapy were ANC ≥ 1.5 × 109 /l or WBC ≥ 3.0 × 109 /l and thrombocytes ≥ 100 × 109 /l.
In patients receiving secondary G-CSF application during cycle 4–6, gemcitabine was
only applied on day 8 if the requirements for resuming chemotherapy were met (ANC
≥ 1.5 × 109 /l or WBC ≥ 3.0 × 109 /l). No G-CSF application was provided on the day of chemotherapy. During all cycles
dose reduction was mandatory when neutropenia persisted despite G-CSF application.
Gastrointestinal toxicity and mucositis at NCI grade 3 led to dose reduction by one
level. Chemotherapy was terminated with mucositis or vomiting of NCI grade 4. Neurological
toxicity of NCI grade 2 led to a dose reduction of one level. Chemotherapy was terminated
in patients who suffered major arrhythmias that required treatment or who experienced
relevant left ventricular ejection fraction reduction; however, treatment was continued
under cardiac monitoring in cases of minor cardiac symptoms (benign arrhythmias, isolated
asymptomatic ventricular extrasystoles).
Randomization, data collection and statistical considerations
Overall, 3754 patients at 271 study centers were randomized from September 2005 until
March 2007 in the SUCCESS-A trial. The trial was completed in September 2013. The
safety and toxicity analyses reported here were performed based on the safety population,
defined as patients who were treated with at least one cycle of FEC chemotherapy (n = 3690).
Toxicity was evaluated once before applying each chemotherapy cycle and once 28 days
after chemotherapy. Cases of NCI toxicity grade 4 or death were communicated to the
investigator. Patients were followed at the study sites at three monthly intervals
for the first three years and every six months thereafter, including clinical examination
(each visit), mammography (every six months) and symptom-driven examinations, if necessary.
Data was obtained from the electronic case report form of the SUCCESS study. High
data quality was ensured by electronic data management including automated randomization,
tests for plausibility as well as regular monitoring visits to the study site by an
independent contract research organization.
Toxicities were calculated as proportion of patients randomized to a treatment arm
that experienced a grade 3–4 adverse event during the course of the treatment (i.e.
cumulative over all six treatment cycles). Furthermore, to facilitate assessment of
adverse events more specifically related to the addition of gemcitabine, toxicities
were also calculated as proportion of patients randomized to a treatment arm that
experienced a grade 3–4 adverse event during the docetaxel vs. docetaxel plus gemcitabine
treatment cycles only (i.e. cumulative over cycles 4–6).
Summary tabulations of numbers and percentages within each category are presented
for all categorical variables, while age, a non-normally distributed continuous variable,
is reported with medians and ranges. Comparisons of the frequency of toxicities or
supportive treatments between the two arms were conducted with the χ2 test or Fisherʼs exact test (in case expected frequencies in single cells of cross
tabulations were 5 or less). All statistical tests were two-sided, and p values of
less than 0.05 were considered significant (i.e., no adjustments of significance levels
for multiple comparisons were made). Statistical analyses were performed with IBM
SPSS Statistics, Version 21.0 (IBM Corp., New York, USA).
Results
Of the 3690 patients, 1861 patients were randomized to the FEC-D arm and 1829 patients
were randomized to the FEC-DG arm. Complete, monitored toxicity data for the duration
of chemotherapy treatment were available for all patients of the safety population.
The median age in both treatment arms was fifty-three years ([Table 1 ]). More than half of all patients (58 %) were postmenopausal. Ductal invasive carcinomas
were observed in 82 % and lobular carcinomas were observed in 11 %. 52 % had carcinomas
measuring between two and five centimeters (T2), and 42 % had tumors smaller than
two centimeters. T3 and T4 tumors were observed in less than 7 %. Histological grade
3 carcinomas were found in approximately 48 % of the patients. The majority had a
positive estrogen receptor status (66 %) as well as progesterone receptor status (59 %),
and a negative HER2 status (75 %). Most patients received breast conserving surgery
(71 %) and radiotherapy (85 %). The two randomization arms were well-balanced with
regard to tumor and patient characteristics ([Table 1 ]).
Table 1 Distribution of patient and tumor characteristics by randomization arm.
Total (n = 3 690)
Randomization arm
FEC-D (n = 1 861)
FEC-DG (n = 1 829)
Age (years)
median
53.0
54.0
53.0
range
21–86
21–86
22–85
Menopausal status
premenopausal
1 542 (41.8 %)
765 (41.1 %)
777 (42.5 %)
postmenopausal
2 148 (58.2 %)
1 096 (58.9 %)
1 052 (57.5 %)
Tumor size
pT1
1 538 (41.7 %)
765 (41.1 %)
773 (42.3 %)
pT2
1 901 (51.5 %)
964 (51.8 %)
937 (51.2 %)
pT3
194 (5.3 %)
105 (5.6 %)
89 (4.9 %)
pT4
52 (1.4 %)
26 (1.4 %)
26 (1.4 %)
unknown
5 (0.1 %)
1 (0.1 %)
4 (0.2 %)
Nodal stage
pN0
1 257 (34.1 %)
623 (33.5 %)
634 (34.7 %)
pN1
1 684 (45.6 %)
868 (46.6 %)
816 (44.6 %)
pN2
507 (13.7 %)
249 (13.4 %)
258 (14.1 %)
pN3
232 (6.3 %)
118 (6.3 %)
114 (6.2 %)
unknown
10 (0.3 %)
3 (0.2 %)
7 (0.4 %)
Histological grading
G1
176 (4.8 %)
79 (4.2 %)
97 (5.3 %)
G2
1 754 (47.5 %)
887 (47.7 %)
867 (47.4 %)
G3
1 756 (47.6 %)
893 (48.0 %)
863 (47.2 %)
unknown
4 (0.1 %)
2 (0.1 %)
2 (0.1 %)
Histological type
invasive ductal
3 027 (82.0 %)
1 527 (82.1 %)
1 500 (82.0 %)
invasive lobular
408 (11.1 %)
207 (11.1 %)
201 (11.0 %)
other
251 (6.8 %)
125 (6.7 %)
126 (6.9 %)
unknown
4 (0.1 %)
2 (0.1 %)
2 (0.1 %)
Estrogen receptor status
negative
1 243 (33.7 %)
605 (32.5 %)
638 (34.9 %)
positive
2 444 (66.2 %)
1 254 (67.4 %)
1 190 (65.1 %)
unknown
3 (0.1 %)
2 (0.1 %)
1 (0.1 %)
Progesterone receptor status
negative
1 510 (40.9 %)
760 (40.8 %)
750 (41.0 %)
positive
2 174 (58.9 %)
1 096 (58.9 %)
1 078 (58.9 %)
unknown
6 (0.2 %)
5 (0.3 %)
1 (0.1 %)
Her2 status
negative
2 748 (74.5 %)
1 392 (74.8 %)
1 356 (74.1 %)
positive
877 (23.8 %)
434 (23.3 %)
443 (24.2 %)
unknown
65 (1.8 %)
35 (1.9 %)
30 (1.6 %)
Type of surgery
breast conserving
2 606 (70.6 %)
1 308 (70.3 %)
1 298 (71.0 %)
mastectomy
1 083 (29.3 %)
553 (29.7 %)
530 (29.0 %)
unknown
1 (0.0 %)
0 (0.0 %)
1 (0.1 %)
Radiotherapy
no
530 (14.4 %)
257 (13.8 %)
273 (14.9 %)
yes
3 148 (85.3 %)
1 597 (85.8 %)
1 551 (84.8 %)
unknown
12 (0.3 %)
7 (0.4 %)
5 (0.3 %)
Hematological and non-hematological toxicity
NCI grade 3 or 4 toxicities that occurred are depicted in [Table 2 ] for hematological toxicity and in [Table 3 ] for non-hematological toxicity.
Table 2 Most common grade 3–4 hematological toxicity (CTCAE V2.0) according to randomization
arm (all cycles, cycles 4–6 only).
Hematological adverse event
FEC-D
FEC-DG
p-valuea
a χ2 test
All cycles
Leukopenia
58.5 (1 089)
64.1 (1 173)
< 0.001
Anemia
1.2 (23)
2.1 (38)
0.045
Thrombopenia
0.5 (10)
2.0 (37)
< 0.001
Neutropenia
35.4 (659)
36.9 (675)
0.345
Febrile neutropenia
6.8 (127)
6.0 (109)
0.283
Cycles 4–6
Leukopenia
45.9 (855)
52.7 (963)
< 0.001
Anemia
0.4 (8)
1.5 (27)
0.001
Thrombopenia
0.1 (1)
1.5 (28)
< 0.001
Neutropenia
26.1 (485)
25.1 (459)
0.502
Febrile neutropenia
5.0 (93)
4.2 (76)
0.221
Table 3 Most common grade 3–4 non-hematological toxicity (CTCAE V2.0) according to randomization
arm.
Non-hematological adverse event
FEC-D
FEC-DG
p-valuea
a χ2 testb Fisher exact test
All cycles
Alopecia
0.2 (3)
0.2 (3)
1.000b
Nausea
3.3 (61)
3.7 (67)
0.522
Fatigue
2.8 (52)
2.6 (47)
0.673
Vomiting
3.9 (72)
3.4 (63)
0.492
Stomatitis
1.9 (36)
2.1 (39)
0.670
SGPT elevation
2.8 (52)
6.3 (116)
< 0.001
Constipation
0.5 (9)
0.5 (10)
0.789
SGOT elevation
1.0 (18)
2.0 (37)
0.008
Diarrhea
2.8 (53)
3.0 (55)
0.774
Bone marrow failure
0.8 (14)
1.4 (26)
0.050
Headache
0.5 (9)
0.8 (15)
0.204
Neuropathy
1.2 (23)
0.3 (6)
0.002
General pain
1.5 (28)
1.1 (20)
0.271
Infection
1.3 (24)
1.9 (34)
0.164
Gastrointestinal disorder
0.8 (15)
1.3 (24)
0.133
Arthralgia
1.6 (29)
0.7 (12)
0.009
Bone pain
2.6 (49)
1.0 (19)
< 0.001
Cycles 4–6
Alopecia
0.0 (0)
0.0 (0)
–
Nausea
0.3 (6)
1.5 (27)
< 0.001
Fatigue
1.8 (33)
2.1 (39)
0.430
Vomiting
0.4 (7)
0.6 (11)
0.326
Stomatitis
1.5 (27)
1.6 (30)
0.641
SGPT elevation
1.5 (28)
5.2 (95)
< 0.001
Constipation
0.3 (5)
0.3 (5)
1.000b
SGOT elevation
0.3 (6)
2.0 (36)
< 0.001
Diarrhea
2.1 (40)
2.5 (46)
0.462
Bone marrow failure
0.2 (4)
1.0 (18)
0.002
Headache
0.2 (3)
0.4 (8)
0.124
Neuropathy
1.1 (21)
0.3 (6)
0.004
General pain
1.0 (19)
0.8 (15)
0.523
Infection
0.6 (11)
1.4 (26)
0.011
Gastrointestinal disorder
0.7 (13)
0.9 (16)
0.544
Arthralgia
1.3 (25)
0.6 (11)
0.022
Bone pain
2.4 (45)
0.9 (17)
< 0.001
Overall, grade 3 or 4 hematological toxicities were observed more frequently in the
FEC-DG arm than in the FEC-D arm ([Table 2 ]). While there were no significant differences between the two treatment arms regarding
the proportion of patients affected by grade 3 or 4 neutropenia or febrile neutropenia,
patients in the FEC-DG arm suffered more often from grade 3 or 4 anemia (2.1 vs. 1.2 %,
p = 0.045), leukopenia (64.1 vs. 58.5 %, p < 0.001) and thrombopenia (2.0 vs. 0.5 %,
p < 0.001) compared with the FEC-D arm. A separate analysis of grade 3 or 4 hematological
toxicities that occurred during cycles 4 to 6 (i.e. during treatment with either docetaxel
alone or docetaxel plus gemcitabine) showed that these differences were most likely
due to the addition of gemcitabine, as the significant differences regarding anemia,
leukopenia and thrombopenia in cycles 4 to 6 closely match the differences observed
when toxicities over all 6 cycles were analyzed ([Table 2 ]).
Non-hematological toxicity was detected at a lower rate than hematological toxicity
in both arms ([Table 3 ]). A statistically significant difference in non-hematological toxicity between the
two treatment arms was noted with regard to grade 3 or 4 serum glutamic pyruvic transaminase
(SGPT) and serum glutamic oxaloacetic transaminase (SGOT) elevation, both of which
were significantly higher in the FEC-DG arm (SGPT: 6.3 vs. 2.8 %, p < 0.001; SGOT:
2.0 vs. 1.0 %, p < 0.01). In contrast, grade 3 or 4 neuropathy (1.2 vs. 0.3 %, p = 0.002),
arthralgia (1.6 vs. 0.7 %, p = 0.009) and bone pain (2.6 vs. 1.0 %, p < 0.001) occurred
significantly more often in the FEC-D arm. No significant differences between FEC-DG
and FEC-D were observed for other non-hematological grade 3 to 4 toxicities ([Table 3 ]). In general, the frequencies of grade 3 or 4 adverse events observed during cycles
4 to 6 match the cumulative frequencies of grade 3 or 4 adverse events observed during
all 6 chemotherapy cycles, indicating that the higher rates of SGPT and SGOT elevation
in the FEC-DG arm were indeed due to the addition of gemcitabine, while the higher
rates of neuropathy, arthralgia and bone pain in the FEC-D arm were most likely caused
by the higher docetaxel dose compared to the FEC-DG arm ([Table 3 ]). However, the separate analysis of grade 3 or 4 non-hematological toxicities during
cycles 4 to 6 revealed significantly higher rates of grade 3 or 4 nausea (1.5 vs.
0.3 %, p < 0.001) and infection (1.4 vs. 0.6 %, p = 0.01) in the FEC-DG arm, which
were not evident when toxicities were analyzed cumulatively over all 6 cycles.
During the follow-up period, three cases of leukemia were reported. In the FEC-DG
arm, two cases of acute myeloid leukemia occurred. One case of chronic lymphocytic
leukemia occurred in the FEC-D arm.
Number of chemotherapy cycles administered and treatment termination
The 3690 patients received a total of 21 428 chemotherapy cycles. In the FEC-DG arm,
10 613 cycles were administered in 1829 patients; in the FEC-D arm, 10 815 cycles
were administered in 1861 patients. All six cycles were completed by 3395 (92.0 %)
of the patients. Chemotherapy was discontinued prematurely in 162 (8.9 %) of the 1829
patients in the FEC-DG arm and in 133 (7.1 %) of 1861 patients in the FEC-D arm.
Dose reduction, treatment delay, G-CSF support and antibiotic treatment
Dose reductions ([Fig. 2 ], [Table 4 ]) occurred significantly more often in the FEC-DG arm compared to the FEC-D arm (FEC-DG:
4.0 % of 10 613 cycles; FEC-D: 2.4 % of 10 815 cycles; p < 0.001; [Table 4 ]). In the FEC-DG arm, most of the 427 dose reductions were caused by hematological
toxicity (45.9 %), while 33.3 % were due to non-hematological toxicities. In contrast,
most of the 261 dose reductions observed in the FEC-D arm were necessitated by non-hematological
toxicities (53.6 %), and only 28.7 % of the dose reductions were caused by hematological
toxicities.
Fig. 2 Frequency of chemotherapy dose reductions for single cycles according to treatment
arm.
Table 4 Reasons for chemotherapy dose reductions according to treatment arm.
Reason
Both randomization arms
FEC-Doc
FEC-DocG
Hematological toxicity
39.4 (271)
28.7 (75)
45.9 (196)
Non-hematological toxicity
41.0 (282)
53.6 (140)
33.3 (142)
Patient request
3.5 (24)
2.7 (7)
4.0 (17)
Other
16.1 (111)
14.9 (39)
16.9 (72)
Total
100.0 (688)
100.0 (261)
100.0 (427)
In total, treatment delays of more than two weeks ([Fig. 3 ], [Table 5 ]) were documented in 135 (0.6 %) of the 21 428 cycles, with 40 treatment delays in
the FEC-D arm and 95 treatment delays in the FEC-DG arm. Treatment delays were observed
at a similar rate in the first three cycles applied (FEC in both arms), while in cycle
4 and particularly in cycles 5 and 6 treatment delays occurred considerably more often
in the FEC-DG arm. Overall, chemotherapy cycles were delayed for more than two weeks
more often in the FEC-DG arm than in the FEC-D arm (0.9 vs. 0.4 %). [Table 5 ] outlines the reasons for the treatment delays. In the FEC-DG arm, 30.5 % of treatment
delays were caused by hematological toxicity, while only 17.5 % of treatment delays
were due to hematological toxicity in the FEC-D arm. 23.2 % and 25.0 % of treatment
delays were caused by non-hematological toxicity in the FEC-DG and FEC-D arm, respectively.
Fig. 3 Frequency of chemotherapy treatment delays of more than two weeks for single cycles
according to treatment arm.
Table 5 Reasons for chemotherapy treatment delays of more than two weeks according to treatment
arm.
Reason
Both randomization arms
FEC-Doc
FEC-DocG
Hematological toxicity
26.7 (36)
17.5 (7)
30.5 (29)
Non-hematological toxicity
23.7 (32)
25.0 (10)
23.2 (22)
Patient request
2.2 (3)
0.0 (0)
3.2 (3)
Technical reasons
8.9 (12)
12.5 (5)
7.4 (7)
Other
38.5 (52)
45.0 (18)
35.8 (34)
Total
100.0 (135)
100.0 (40)
100.0 (95)
In the first three chemotherapy cycles administered (FEC in both arms), there were
no significant differences between the two randomization arms with regard to the proportion
of patients who received G-CSF support (FEC-DG: 23.4 %, FEC-D: 24.3 %, p = 0.53).
In contrast, patients in the FEC-DG arm were significantly more likely to receive
G-CSF support compared with patients in the FEC-D arm in chemotherapy cycles 4 to
6 (FEC-DG: 57.8 %, FEC-D: 36.3 %, p < 0.001). Likewise, patients in the two randomization
arms were treated with oral antibiotics at a similar frequency in the first three
chemotherapy cycles (FEC-DG: 19.0 %, FEC-D: 18.9 %; p = 0.89), while for chemotherapy
cycles 4 to 6 patients in the FEC-DG arm received oral antibiotic treatment more often
compared with patients in the FEC-D arm (FEC-DG: 25.5 %, FEC-D: 22.5 %; p = 0.04).
During cycles 1 to 3, intravenous antibiotic therapy was applied less often, and there
were no significant differences between the two randomization arms (FEC-DG: 3.0 %,
FEC-D: 3.1 %; p = 0.92) or during cycles 4 to 6 (FEC-DG: 6.4 %, FEC-D: 5.3 %; p = 0.19).
Death during the trial
Twelve deaths occurred during chemotherapy treatment. Eight deaths occurred in the
FEC-DG arm, and four occurred in the FEC-D arm. The investigator and sponsor assessed
causality for each case. Scores of 1 (very probable) through 5 (no relationship) were
provided for each case. In the FEC-DG arm, five patients died of respiratory failure
caused by fulminant pneumonia. A 69-year-old patient died of acute respiratory distress
syndrome caused by pneumonia five weeks after the first cycle of DG (causality: 1),
and a 60-old patient died six weeks after the third cycle of DG (causality: 2). Two
58-year-old patients died of respiratory decompensation caused by atypical pneumonia
five and six weeks after the second cycle of DG (causality: 2). One 65-year-old patient
died five weeks after the last cycle of DG (causality: 3). One patient succumbed to
pulmonary embolism four days after the last cycle of DG. Two patients died of sudden
cardiac arrest. A 67-year-old patient died after an event of generalized pain two
weeks after the second cycle of DG, and a 60-year-old patient was found dead after
toe amputation for gangrene two weeks after the last cycle of DG.
In the FEC-D arm, four deaths occurred; two were caused by pulmonary embolism. One
54-year-old patient suffered a spontaneous fatal pulmonary embolism 10 days after
the last cycle of FEC (causality: 3), and one patient succumbed to a pulmonary embolism
on the first postoperative night after cholecystectomy two weeks after the second
cycle of FEC (causality: 3). The remaining two deaths (causality: 2) were a 74-year-old
patient with other comorbidities, who died of cardiac decompensation during pancolitis
one month after the first cycle of docetaxel, and a 70-year-old who died of cardiac
complications of closely monitored type II diabetes mellitus six weeks after the second
cycle of docetaxel.
Discussion
To our knowledge, no other trials have addressed the inclusion of gemcitabine in adjuvant
FEC-D therapy for local high-risk breast cancer. One of the hypotheses of the SUCCESS-A
trial is that reducing the docetaxel dose by 25 % and adding gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 d1 and d8 to the chemotherapeutic regimen will lead to comparable toxicity profiles.
Comparing our toxicity results with other trials combining polychemotherapeutic regimens
and gemcitabine in breast cancer patients demonstrates heterogeneous results as the
various study designs differ. In the FEC-DG arm, the toxicity profile is demonstrated
by leukopenia, thrombopenia, and anemia. The fact that G-CSF support and antibiotics
were provided significantly more often in the FEC-DG arm might explain why no significant
differences in the rates of neutropenia and febrile neutropenia were observed between
the two groups. It is possible that without these preventive measures, the side effects
of adding gemcitabine would have been greater. For example, in the NSABP-B38 trial
[25 ] adjuvant chemotherapy with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide was followed by paclitaxel
and gemcitabine. G-CSF support was used in 93 % of chemotherapy cycles resulting in
low rates of neutropenia (3 %). In contrast, the NSABP-B40 trial [26 ] reported that in the neoadjuvant docetaxel and gemcitabine arm the toxic effect
with the greatest increase in frequency compared with the toxic effects of docetaxel
alone was neutropenia in 34 % of the patients (NCI grade 3 and 4). Trials in the metastatic
setting report increased rates of neutropenia (47.9 %) and thrombocytopenia (6.1 %)
compared with our results. This may be explained by the decreased bone marrow reserve
caused by prior radiation and chemotherapy or by the restricted use of G-CSF [24 ].
The non-hematological side effects reflect the lower taxane dose, the use of gemcitabine
in the FEC-DG arm and the standard docetaxel 100 mg dose in the FEC-D arm. In the
FEC-DG arm, gemcitabine caused a significant elevation of SGPT and/or SGOT, which
is consistent with other trials and is well described as a limiting factor for dose
escalation [27 ], [28 ]. An example is the Neo-tAnGo trial [29 ], which included neoadjuvant gemcitabine in combination with paclitaxel before or
after epirubicin/cyclophosphamide treatment where additional gemcitabine also resulted
in increased rates of transaminitis. Other significant gemcitabine associated toxicities
such as grade 3 or 4 nausea and infection, that were not evident when toxicities were
analyzed cumulatively over all 6 cycles, were observed in cycles 4 to 6. The increased
rates of neurological and musculoskeletal toxicities in the FEC-D arm reflecting the
higher taxane dose are comparable with other trials administering FEC-D [30 ].
The interpretation of dose reduction and treatment delay reveals that FEC-DG is not
tolerated as well as docetaxel alone due to cumulative hematological toxicity. Expectedly,
in the FEC part of chemotherapy (first, second and third cycles) there were no differences
in dose reduction and treatment delay between the two chemotherapy arms. As gemcitabine
was administered in the next three consecutive cycles, the two randomization arms
start to diverge as the frequencies of dose reduction and treatment delay increase
significantly in the FEC-DG arm. Interestingly, the toxicity profile of the two arms
is reflected in the reasoning for dose reduction: In the FEC-DG arm, most dose reductions
were caused by hematological toxicities (45.9 %), while in the FEC-D arm they are
mostly due to non-hematological toxicities (53.6 %). Surprisingly, the frequency of
treatment delay for more than two weeks was more than four times as high during the
fifth and sixth cycles in the FEC-DG arm compared with the FEC-D arm. Gemcitabine
was given on day 1, but also on day 8 which falls into the nadir of hematological
toxicity for docetaxel. This d1+d8 regimen in the study design could explain not only
the numbers of dose reductions and treatment delays, but also the significantly higher
administration rate of G-CSF and antibiotics in the FEC-DG arm regarding the study
protocolʼs guidelines. Finally, the fact that cytostatic treatment was prematurely
stopped more often in the FEC-DG arm highlights its increased toxicity profile.
More patients died during chemotherapy with FEC-DG. Notable are the five deaths caused
by respiratory complications of inflammatory and/or infectious origin in the FEC-DG
group. Respiratory adverse events caused by gemcitabine include dyspnea, bronchospasm
and interstitial pneumonitis [24 ]. A prospective pulmonary, cardiac and hepatic function evaluation was undertaken
in the tAnGo trial [31 ]. This trial reported temporary reductions in pulmonary function levels, being significantly
greater with additive gemcitabine. Combining these facts with the higher rate of hematological
toxicity registered in the FEC-DG arm and the higher predisposition for infections,
the causality of the death-related events might be assumed.
Conclusion
At present gemcitabine is indicated as a first line treatment in combination with
paclitaxel for patients with locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer who have,
as part of their adjuvant or neoadjuvant therapy, received anthracyclines or who have
a contraindication against anthracycline therapy [24 ]. The results of three large trials, NSABP-B38 [25 ], NSABP-B40 [26 ] and Neo-tAnGo [29 ], investigating the role of gemcitabine in the adjuvant and neoadjuvant setting,
showed no benefit from the addition of gemcitabine to anthracycline and taxane-based
chemotherapy treatments for early breast cancer. Our toxicity data demonstrates an
increase in grade 3 and 4 hematological toxicity, in dose reductions and postponement
of treatment cycles, as well as an increased need for G-CSF and antibiotic support
and a higher number of fatalities in the FEC-DG arm compared with FEC-Doc alone. Although
survival data from the SUCCESS A trial are still pending, our toxicity data taken
in combination with the results of other trials using gemcitabine in the adjuvant
setting strongly suggest that the use of gemcitabine as a component of an adjuvant
breast cancer chemotherapy regimen is not a favorable therapeutic option.
Acknowledgements
This has been a collaborative project from the start. We gratefully acknowledge the
thousands of patients participating in the SUCCESS-A trial, as well as all the staff
members and colleagues that helped to realize this trial.
