Goble Sharon, Bear Harry D
Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, Virginia Commonwealth University's Medical College of Virginia, P.O. Box 980230, VCUHS, Richmond, VA 23298-0230, USA.
Surg Clin North Am. 2003 Aug;83(4):943-71. doi: 10.1016/S0039-6109(03)00071-9.
Adjuvant chemotherapy has gained increasing prominence in the treatment of nonmetastatic breast cancer, producing gradual improvement in the survival of these patients. The taxanes offer great hope for adding to the progress in adjuvant treatment, but data have been conflicting. Early results of multi-center trials testing the sequential addition of paclitaxel to anthracycline-based adjuvant chemotherapy have perhaps been prematurely reported, but have already made a major impact on patterns of care for node-positive and even some node-negative patients. The early dramatic improvements in CALG 9344 are fading with time, however, and have not been confirmed by a second similar trial, NSABP B-28. Moreover, it cannot be stated with certainty whether the modest improvements observed by sequential addition of paclitaxel reflect the ability of this drug to kill anthracycline-resistant cancer cells or the increased total duration and amount of treatment. By contrast, the early results of the BCIRG 001 trial suggest that combining docetaxel with doxorubicin may significantly increase survival, but these early results should be viewed with caution and do not necessarily mean that docetaxel is superior to paclitaxel. The role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer has also expanded over the past 2 decades, from its initial use for inoperable locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) to its current use for patients with large operable tumors to make BCT feasible. The neoadjuvant approach also has an important role in clinical trials, where it will allow more rapid comparison of treatment regimens than can be accomplished in the adjuvant setting and provides an opportunity to analyze biologic markers as predictors of response. The value of this approach, however, will ultimately depend on a clear demonstration, not yet available, that a change in therapy that increases primary tumor response will also lead to improved long-term survival. The roles of docetaxel and paclitaxel in the neoadjuvant setting has been actively investigated over the past 5 to 10 years, and exciting results are beginning to emerge. Clearly, docetaxel has potent antitumor activity against breast cancer. Several preliminary results suggest that addition of docetaxel to an anthracycline-based regimen, particularly when added sequentially, as in NASBP B-27 and the Aberdeen trial, results in higher clinical and pathologic response rates. Whether this will translate into increased long-term survival, as suggested by the early results of the Aberdeen trial, remains to be seen. Whether sequential addition of docetaxel to doxorubicin is more or less effective than combining these drugs also has not been established. The results from M.D. Anderson suggesting that paclitaxel given on a weekly schedule was more effective than the same drug given every 3 weeks are particularly intriguing, and they may help to explain why the adjuvant studies with paclitaxel given every 3 weeks have not produced more dramatic results, whereas several studies with docetaxel (also given every 3 weeks) seem so positive. It may be that paclitaxel, with activity that is highly schedule-dependent and for which cell killing is more dependent on the duration of exposure, works best when given weekly, whereas the efficacy of docetaxel depends less on scheduling. If this is the case, then weekly paclitaxel may turn out to be equally effective as docetaxel appears to be even when given every 3 weeks. Alternatively, if docetaxel is simply a more active drug, then giving docetaxel weekly may be the most effective taxane regimen. Whether routine use of weekly chemotherapy administration in the adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting is practical or not is largely subjective, but at least it appears that the toxicity of this approach is acceptable. These issues are also being addressed in ongoing trials. Finally, taxanes have produced dramatic increases in response rates in the neoadjuvant setting, but, except for the Aberdeen trial, survival benefits have not yet been shown. If, however, the high pCR rates do translate into overall survival benefits that are greater than adding taxanes to postoperative adjuvant therapy, it might suggest that, unlike other drugs, taxanes are actually more effective before surgery than after, as predicted originally based on laboratory experiments. Clearly, much work remains to be done in this area of research on breast cancer therapy.
辅助化疗在非转移性乳腺癌的治疗中日益受到重视,使这些患者的生存率逐步提高。紫杉烷类药物为辅助治疗的进展带来了很大希望,但相关数据存在矛盾。多中心试验早期结果显示,在基于蒽环类药物的辅助化疗基础上序贯添加紫杉醇,这些结果或许报告得过早,但已对淋巴结阳性甚至部分淋巴结阴性患者的治疗模式产生了重大影响。然而,CALG 9344试验早期显著的改善效果随着时间推移逐渐消失,且未被第二项类似试验NSABP B - 28证实。此外,尚不能确定序贯添加紫杉醇所观察到的适度改善是反映了该药物杀死蒽环类耐药癌细胞的能力,还是治疗总时长和总量的增加。相比之下,BCIRG 001试验的早期结果表明,多西他赛与阿霉素联合使用可能显著提高生存率,但这些早期结果应谨慎看待,并不一定意味着多西他赛优于紫杉醇。在过去20年里,新辅助化疗在乳腺癌治疗中的作用也有所扩大,从最初用于无法手术的局部晚期乳腺癌(LABC),到目前用于可手术的大肿瘤患者以使保乳手术可行。新辅助治疗方法在临床试验中也具有重要作用,它比辅助治疗能更快地比较治疗方案,并提供了分析生物标志物作为反应预测指标的机会。然而,这种方法的价值最终将取决于能否明确证明,增加原发肿瘤反应的治疗改变也会带来长期生存率的提高,而目前尚无相关证据。在过去5至10年里,多西他赛和紫杉醇在新辅助治疗中的作用得到了积极研究,令人兴奋的结果开始显现。显然,多西他赛对乳腺癌具有强大的抗肿瘤活性。几项初步结果表明,在基于蒽环类药物的方案中添加多西他赛,特别是像在NASBP B - 27和阿伯丁试验中那样序贯添加,会导致更高的临床和病理反应率。如阿伯丁试验早期结果所示,这是否会转化为长期生存率的提高,仍有待观察。多西他赛序贯添加到阿霉素中是否比联合使用这两种药物更有效也尚未确定。MD安德森癌症中心的结果表明,每周给药的紫杉醇比每3周给药的同一药物更有效,这一结果尤其引人关注,它们可能有助于解释为什么每3周给药的紫杉醇辅助研究没有产生更显著的结果,而几项多西他赛(同样每3周给药)研究似乎很积极。可能是紫杉醇的活性高度依赖给药方案,其细胞杀伤更依赖暴露时长,每周给药时效果最佳,而多西他赛的疗效对给药方案的依赖较小。如果是这样,那么每周给药的紫杉醇可能与每3周给药的多西他赛效果相当。或者,如果多西他赛只是一种活性更强的药物,那么每周给药的多西他赛可能是最有效的紫杉烷类给药方案。在辅助或新辅助治疗中常规使用每周化疗给药是否可行在很大程度上是主观的,但至少这种方法的毒性似乎是可接受的。正在进行的试验也在解决这些问题。最后,紫杉烷类药物在新辅助治疗中使反应率大幅提高,但除了阿伯丁试验外,尚未显示出生存获益。然而,如果高病理完全缓解(pCR)率确实转化为总体生存获益,且大于在术后辅助治疗中添加紫杉烷类药物,这可能表明,与其他药物不同,紫杉烷类药物实际上在手术前比手术后更有效,这与最初基于实验室实验的预测一致。显然,在乳腺癌治疗的这一研究领域仍有许多工作要做。