Time to progression in metastatic breast cancer patients treated with epirubicin is not improved by the addition of either cisplatin or lonidamine: final results of a phase III study with a factorial design. A phase III clinical trial comparing the combination cyclophosphamide, adriamycin, cisplatin with cyclophosphamide, 5-fluorouracil, prednisone in patients with advanced breast cancer. Combination of cyclophosphamide, adriamycin and platinum (CAP) versus 5-fluorouracil, adriamycin and cyclophosphamide (FAC) as primary treatment in metastatic breast cancer: results of a prospective randomized study. Comparison of CMF (cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and 5-fluorouracil) with a rotational crossing and a sequential intensification regimen in advanced breast cancer: a prospective randomized study. Safety and efficacy of using a single agent or a phase II agent before instituting standard combination chemotherapy in previously untreated metastatic breast cancer patients: report of a randomized study--Cancer and Leukemia Group B 8642. Cisplatin and etoposide as first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast carcinoma: a prospective randomized trial of the Italian Oncology Group for Clinical Research. Randomized phase II trial of infusional fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide versus infusional fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cisplatin in patients with advanced breast cancer. Cyclophosphamide, adriamycin and platinum (CAP) combination chemotherapy, a new effective approach in the treatment of disseminated breast cancer. Preliminary report.
To investigate the value of the addition of either cisplatin (CDDP) or lonidamine (LND) to epirubicin (EPI) in the first-line treatment of advanced breast cancer.
                Three hundred seventy-one metastatic breast cancer patients with no prior systemic chemotherapy for advanced disease were randomized to receive either EPI alone (60 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 2 every 21 days), EPI and CDDP (30 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 2 every 21 days), EPI and LND (450 mg orally daily, given continuously), or EPI, CDDP, and LND. Time to progression, response rates, side effects, and survival were compared according to the 2 x 2 factorial design of this study.
                The groups were well balanced with respect to prognostic factors. Time to progression did not differ in the comparison between CDDP arms and non-CDDP arms (median, 10.9 months v 9.4 months, respectively; P =.10) or between that of LND arms and non-LND arms (median, 10.8 months v 9.9 months, respectively; P =.47), nor did overall survival. The response rate did not significantly differ in the comparison between LND arms and non-LND arms (62.9% v 54.0%, P =.08). No difference in treatment activity was observed between CDDP arms and non-CDDP arms. Toxicity was significantly higher in the CDDP arms, leading to CDDP dose adjustment in 40% of cases. The most frequent side effects were of a hematologic and gastrointestinal nature. The addition of LND produced more myalgias and fatigue.
                Neither CDDP nor LND was able to significantly improve the time to progression obtained by EPI. CDDP, however, significantly worsened the drug's tolerability. We assessed the efficacy of a regimen consisting of four cycles of cyclophosphamide, Adriamycin (Adria Laboratories, Inc, Columbus, Ohio), cisplatin (CAP) followed by maintenance with cyclophosphamide, 5-fluorouracil, prednisone (CFP) compared with CFP alone in a randomized trial of 86 patients with advanced breast cancer. The objective regression rates were 46% (CFP) and 49% (CAP with CFP) which included complete regression rates of 7% (CFP) and 4% (CAP with CFP). The median time to progression was nine months for CFP and six months for CAP with CFP. Median survival in the CFP group was 18 months v 11 months in the CAP recipients. Due to the therapeutic trend in favor of patients receiving CFP, we terminated the study before achieving our initially projected accrual. We observed over a twofold excess of substantial nausea and vomiting among patients receiving the platinum-based regimen. In our view, the CAP followed by the CFP regimen is a more toxic program that offers no clinically meaningful improvement over CFP to patients with advanced breast cancer. Based on favorable results we reported earlier with the CAP regimen in breast cancer (CAP vs CMFVP), the present study compared the CAP with the FAC regimen, which is so far one of the most active adriamycin containing chemotherapy regimens in breast cancer. The aim of the study was to find the optimal first line treatment and possibly evaluate the role of cis platinum in breast cancer chemotherapy. The CAP schedule consisted of cyclophosphamide 200 mg/m2 i.v. days 1, 3 and 5, adriamycin 40 mg/m2 i.v. day 1, and platinum 30 mg/m2 i.v. day 1, 3 and 5. The FAC schedule included 5-FU 500 mg/m2 days 1 and 8, adriamycin 50 mg/m2 day 1, and cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m2 day 1. One hundred and twenty-six previously untreated patients received greater than 2 cycles and were evaluated. In the CAP arm 15 complete (26%) and 24 partial remissions were observed, resulting in a 67% overall response rate (39/58). The response in soft tissue and visceral organs was notable (78% - 22/28, 71% - 15/21) with an important complete response rate (32%). In the FAC arm there was an overall response in 41% (28/68) of patients, with 8 complete (12%) and 20 partial responses. The difference in overall response, complete response, and response in soft tissue and visceral organs, was statistically significant in favor of the CAP arm (P less than 0.005). Concerning bone metastases there was no difference between the two schedules in response rate, nor in the median remission duration (CAP 11, FAC 10 months). In spite of a somewhat longer median survival in the CAP group, the difference (13 months vs 9 months) was not statistically significant (P = 0.10). Toxicity was moderate and tolerable in both regimens with more pronounced myelosuppression and vomiting in the CAP group. Compared with the FAC schedule the platinum containing combination chemotherapy (CAP) showed higher antitumor activity with no reflection on remission duration and survival. The Italian Oncology Group for Clinical Research tested two experimental chemotherapy strategies in an attempt to improve the results achievable with conventional chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer. One hundred sixty-two patients were randomly allocated as follows: (a) to the conventional cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil chemotherapy regimen (CMF); (b) to a rotational crossing program (ROT-CROSS); or (c) to a sequential intensification program (SEQ-INT). The same single agents (C, M, F, cisplatin, etoposide, and doxorubicin) were administered in both experimental arms, but following a different policy. The SEQ-INT program induced a significantly higher complete response (32% vs. 6%, p = 0.0006) and objective response rate (72% vs. 42%, p = 0.0047) than CMF did. There were no differences in survival between CMF and either experimental arm. A number of side effects were significantly more with both experimental chemotherapies than with CMF, but the treatments were generally tolerable. Although some caution is required when interpreting a significant advantage found between an entire chemotherapeutic strategy and a single conventional combination, this study documents the potential therapeutic advantage of administering different sequential chemotherapies, and changing each at the time of maximum result without waiting for a progression. The impressive cytoreductive effects achievable with this policy (SEQ-INT) in metastatic disease merit further investigation in the adjuvant setting. We undertook a prospective, randomized phase III trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of using a phase II agent before initiating therapy with standard combination chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer patients.
                A total of 365 women with measurable metastatic breast cancer, previously untreated with chemotherapy for their metastatic disease, were randomized to receive either immediate chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and fluorouracil (CAF) or up to four cycles of one of five sequential cohorts of single-agent drugs: trimetrexate, melphalan, amonafide, carboplatin, or elsamitrucin, followed by CAF.
                The toxicity of each single agent followed by CAF was comparable to that of CAF alone. The cumulative response rates for the single agent followed by CAF were not statistically different from those of CAF alone (44% v 52%; P = .24). However, in the multivariate analysis, patients with visceral disease had a trend toward lower response rates on the phase II agent plus CAF arm (P = .078). Although survival and response duration also were not statistically significantly different between the two study arms (P = .074 and P = .069, respectively), there was a suggestion of benefit for the CAF-only arm.
                The brief use of a phase II agent, regardless of its efficacy, followed by CAF resulted in response rates, toxicities, durations of response, and survival statistically equivalent to those seen with the use of CAF alone. These findings support the use of a new paradigm for the evaluation of phase II agents in the treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer. In this prospective randomized study, first-line treatment with the combination of cisplatin (P) and etoposide (E) was compared with the standard cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) combination in 140 patients. Complete remissions were obtained in 11% of 65 assessable patients on CMF and in 12% of 65 assessable patients on PE. Complete plus partial remission rates were 48% on CMF and 63% on PE (P = .08). Time to progression (median, 32 v 31 weeks), duration of response (48 v 39 weeks), and survival (75 v 76 weeks) were not different. Hematologic toxicity was significantly higher with PE, and gastrointestinal side effects were frequent with this treatment. This study demonstrated that the PE combination is effective as front-line chemotherapy. As far as response rate is concerned, a trend of superiority over CMF was observed, which was of borderline significance. Due to the lack of survival advantage and to toxicity, this combination is not recommended for routine clinical use. However, its high level of activity should be taken into account for further research. We previously developed an inpatient regimen that consisted of infusional fluorouracil (5-FU), epirubicin, and cisplatin (ECisF), with a response rate of 86% in advanced breast cancer. The current phase II 2:1 randomized study investigated whether cyclophosphamide can be substituted for cisplatin (ECycloF) to reduce toxicity and allow the regimen to be administered on an outpatient basis without loss of efficacy.
                Ninety-six women (median age, 49 years; range, 28 to 73) with breast cancer (59 metastatic, 37 locally advanced) received continuous infusional 5-FU (200 mg/m2/d via Hickman line) and six cycles of epirubicin (60 mg/m2 every 21 days) with either cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2 every 21 days (38 metastatic, 24 locally advanced) or cisplatin 60 mg/m2 every 21 days (21 metastatic, 13 locally advanced). There were no significant differences in patient characteristics between these groups.
                ECycloF was better tolerated than ECisF in terms of lethargy (P = .005), stomatitis (P = .008), plantar palmar erythema (P = .02), constipation (P < .001), thrombosis (P = .0014), and nausea and vomiting (P = .05). Although there was a trend toward more anemia and leukopenia with ECisF (P =. 1), there was no significant difference in the rates of infection. Efficacy was comparable in terms of overall response (69% v 68%), complete response (CR; 13% v 15%), and median progression-free survival (9 v 8 months).
                ECycloF is an outpatient regimen with a lower incidence of severe nonhematologic toxicity than inpatient ECisF; it has comparable efficacy and is considerably more economical. The prospective controlled Phase III clinical trial tested the therapeutic value of the cis-platinum-adriamycin-cyclophosphamide combination (CAP), compared with the combination including cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil, vincristine and prednisolone (CMFVP), in untreated metastatic breast cancer. One hundred and twenty-three patients (greater than 2 cycles) were evaluated: 61 on the CAP, and 62 on the CMFVP schedule. An objective response (CR + PR) to CAP combination chemotherapy was achieved in 72% of patients (43/61), with a high rate (36%) of complete remissions. In terms of metastatic site, the response rate appeared to be particularly high in soft tissue and visceral organ (lung, liver) metastases. In the CMFVP group, an objective response was noted in 26 of 62 patients (42%), with 16% complete remissions. The difference in overall therapeutic response - and in the complete remission rate as well - was statistically significant to the advantage of the CAP regimen (P less than 0.01). The duration of remissions was 6-28 + months (means = 14) for the CAP, and 4-15 + months (mean = 9) for the CMFVP schedule. Toxic side effects were more pronounced in the CAP group, particularly myelosuppression, with anemia prevailing. Side effects of CMFVP treatment were moderate. In 39 CMFVP previously treated cases, CAP was administered as second-line treatment, and an objective response was observed in 51% of cases (20/39). Results of this controlled trial showed the advantage of the CAP combination chemotherapy in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer.
In view of the significant excess toxicity, lack of progression or survival benefit and the availability of less toxic active agents it is difficult to justify the use of platinum-containing regimens, particularly as first line treatment for women with metastatic breast cancer in routine clinical practice. Ongoing trials are examining the possibility of synergy between platins and trastuzamab, a monoclonal antibody treatment. No randomised trials containing oxalplatin were identified for the present review.