[Assessment of goserelin treatment in adjuvant therapy for premenopausal patients with breast cancer in Japan-zoladex breast cancer study group trial-B]. A randomised factorial trial of sequential doxorubicin and CMF vs CMF and chemotherapy alone vs chemotherapy followed by goserelin plus tamoxifen as adjuvant treatment of node-positive breast cancer. Adjuvant goserelin in pre-menopausal patients with early breast cancer: Results from the ZIPP study. Goserelin versus cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil as adjuvant therapy in premenopausal patients with node-positive breast cancer: The Zoladex Early Breast Cancer Research Association Study. Adjuvant chemotherapy followed by goserelin versus either modality alone for premenopausal lymph node-negative breast cancer: a randomized trial. Adjuvant endocrine treatment (goserelin vs tamoxifen) in pre-menopausal patients with operable node positive stage II breast cancer. A prospective randomized national multicenter study. Cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and fluorouracil (CMF) versus hormonal ablation with leuprorelin acetate as adjuvant treatment of node-positive, premenopausal breast cancer patients: preliminary results of the TABLE-study (Takeda Adjuvant Breast cancer study with Leuprorelin Acetate). Endocrine therapy plus zoledronic acid in premenopausal breast cancer. Randomized adjuvant trial of tamoxifen and goserelin versus cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil: evidence for the superiority of treatment with endocrine blockade in premenopausal patients with hormone-responsive breast cancer--Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group Trial 5.
Goserelin (GOS) therapy in an adjuvant setting for estrogen receptor(ER)-positive premenopausal patients with breast cancer was assessed in a randomised comparative study.
                ER positive premenopausal patients with n + or n 0 and T > or = 3 cm received tamoxifen (TAM) 20 mg/day, GOS 3.6 mg/4 weeks or GOS + TAM for 2 years, and the clinical efficacy and safety of these regimens were assessed.
                In the data analysis of total 207 patients, hazard ratios of disease free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in the GOS group compared to the TAM group were 0.87 and 2.10,respectively. The incidence of adverse drug reactions was similar (42-55%) in all three groups. Since the number of patients in this study did not reach the target number, the efficacy could not be assessed from a statistical aspect. Therefore,meta-analysis with similar foreign studies(ZIPP) was implemented. The results of meta-analysis showed that the hazard ratios of DFS and OS in the GOS group compared to the non-GOS group were 0.83 and 0.85, respectively.
                Although the analysis of 207 patients did not show any statistically significant difference between each of the treatment groups, the results of meta-analysis showed a significant prolongation of DFS in the GOS group. Also high tolerability of GOS was suggested. From these results, GOS was considered highly useful in adjuvant therapy for ER-positive premenopausal patients with breast cancer. The sequential doxorubicin --> CMF (CMF=cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, fluorouracil) regimen has never been compared to CMF in a randomised trial. The role of adding goserelin and tamoxifen after chemotherapy is unclear. In all, 466 premenopausal node-positive patients were randomised to: (a) CMF x 6 cycles (CMF); (b) doxorubicin x 4 cycles followed by CMF x 6 cycles (A --> CMF); (c) CMF x 6 cycles followed by goserelin plus tamoxifen x 2 years (CMF --> GT); and (d) doxorubicin x 4 cycles followed by CMF x 6 cycles followed by goserelin plus tamoxifen x 2 years (A --> CMF --> GT). The study used a 2 x 2 factorial experimental design to assess: (1) the effect of the chemotherapy regimens (CMF vs A --> CMF or arms a+c vs b+d) and (2) the effect of adding GT after chemotherapy (arms a+b vs c+d). At a median follow-up of 72 months, A --> CMF as compared to CMF significantly improved disease-free survival (DFS) with a multivariate hazard ratio (HR)=0.740 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.556-0.986; P=0.040) and produced a nonsignificant improvement of overall survival (OS) (HR=0.764; 95% CI: 0.489-1.193). The addition of GT after chemotherapy significantly improved DFS (HR=0.74; 95% CI: 0.555-0.987; P=0.040), with a nonsignificant improvement of OS (HR=0.84; 95% CI: 0.54-1.32). A --> CMF is superior to CMF. Adding GT after chemotherapy is beneficial for premenopausal node-positive patients. The Zoladex In Pre-menopausal Patients (ZIPP) study was designed to determine whether addition of goserelin ('Zoladex') and/or tamoxifen to adjuvant therapy (radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy), provided benefit to pre- or peri-menopausal women with operable, early breast cancer. A combined analysis of four randomised trials using a core protocol was performed. Patients (n = 2710) were randomised into a 2 x 2 factorial trial based on goserelin and tamoxifen (n = 1800) or randomised to receive goserelin or not (n = 910; some received elective tamoxifen) for 2 years. The analysis presented here compares women who did (n = 1354) or did not (n = 1356) receive goserelin. After a median follow-up of 5.5 years, goserelin provided a significant benefit for event-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69, 0.92; P = 0.002) and overall survival (HR 0.81; 95% CI 0.67, 0.99; P = 0.038). Goserelin was well tolerated. These data show that the addition of goserelin to standard adjuvant therapy is more effective than standard therapy alone in pre-menopausal women with early breast cancer. Current adjuvant therapies have improved survival for premenopausal patients with breast cancer but may have short-term toxic effects and long-term effects associated with premature menopause.
                The Zoladex Early Breast Cancer Research Association study assessed the efficacy and tolerability of goserelin (3.6 mg every 28 days for 2 years; n = 817) versus cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) chemotherapy (six 28-day cycles; n = 823) for adjuvant treatment in premenopausal patients with node-positive breast cancer.
                Analysis was performed when 684 events had been achieved, and the median follow-up was 6 years. A significant interaction between treatment and estrogen receptor (ER) status was found (P =.0016). In ER-positive patients (approximately 74%), goserelin was equivalent to CMF for disease-free survival (DFS) (hazard ratio [HR], 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84 to 1.20). In ER-negative patients, goserelin was inferior to CMF for DFS (HR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.27 to 2.44). Amenorrhea occurred in more than 95% of goserelin patients by 6 months versus 58.6% of CMF patients. Menses returned in most goserelin patients after therapy stopped, whereas amenorrhea was generally permanent in CMF patients (22.6% v 76.9% amenorrheic at 3 years). Chemotherapy-related side effects such as nausea/vomiting, alopecia, and infection were higher with CMF than with goserelin during CMF treatment. Side effects related to estrogen suppression were initially higher with goserelin, but when goserelin treatment stopped, reduced to a level below that observed in the CMF group.
                Goserelin offers an effective, well-tolerated alternative to CMF in premenopausal patients with ER-positive and node-positive early breast cancer. Although chemotherapy and ovarian function suppression are both effective adjuvant therapies for patients with early-stage breast cancer, little is known of the efficacy of their sequential combination. In an International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG) randomized clinical trial (Trial VIII) for pre- and perimenopausal women with lymph node-negative breast cancer, we compared sequential chemotherapy followed by the gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist goserelin with each modality alone.
                From March 1990 through October 1999, 1063 patients stratified by estrogen receptor (ER) status and radiotherapy plan were randomly assigned to receive goserelin for 24 months (n = 346), six courses of "classical" CMF (cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil) chemotherapy (n = 360), or six courses of classical CMF followed by 18 months of goserelin (CMF --> goserelin; n = 357). A fourth arm (no adjuvant treatment) with 46 patients was discontinued in 1992. Tumors were classified as ER-negative (30%), ER-positive (68%), or ER status unknown (3%). Twenty percent of patients were aged 39 years or younger. The median follow-up was 7 years. The primary outcome was disease-free survival (DFS).
                Patients with ER-negative tumors achieved better disease-free survival if they received CMF (5-year DFS for CMF = 84%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 77% to 91%; 5-year DFS for CMF --> goserelin = 88%, 95% CI = 82% to 94%) than if they received goserelin alone (5-year DFS = 73%, 95% CI = 64% to 81%). By contrast, for patients with ER-positive disease, chemotherapy alone and goserelin alone provided similar outcomes (5-year DFS for both treatment groups = 81%, 95% CI = 76% to 87%), whereas sequential therapy (5-year DFS = 86%, 95% CI = 82% to 91%) provided a statistically nonsignificant improvement compared with either modality alone, primarily because of the results among younger women.
                Premenopausal women with ER-negative (i.e., endocrine nonresponsive), lymph node-negative breast cancer should receive adjuvant chemotherapy. For patients with ER-positive (i.e., endocrine responsive) disease, the combination of chemotherapy with ovarian function suppression or other endocrine agents, and the use of endocrine therapy alone should be studied. To evaluate possible differences in effect on time to recurrence and overall survival in node positive pre-menopausal breast cancer patients (age < or = 50 years) receiving LHRH analogue or tamoxifen as adjuvant endocrine treatment.
                Between January 1989 and July 1994, 320 patients with node positive (pN(+)) and hormone receptor positive or receptor status unknown tumors were included and randomized in a national multicenter study to receive either tamoxifen or goserelin as adjuvant treatment for two years. Primary surgical treatment was employed according to current standards. Final follow-up was completed as of December 2000. Time to events were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method, and compared by the log rank test. Relative risks were estimated by the Cox's proportional hazards model.
                No differences in time to first recurrence or overall survival were observed between treatment groups. Proportions of patients in each group having a second breast cancer were also similar.
                Standard adjuvant treatment with tamoxifen as compared to adjuvant LHRH analogue therapy employed in this group of breast cancer patients gave similar outcomes, but the number of patients was too small to formally exclude a potentially clinically relevant difference in survival. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of leuprorelin acetate in adjuvant treatment in comparison to standard chemotherapy with CMF in premenopausal, estrogen-receptor-positive or unknown, node-positive patients with early breast cancer.
                The patients were randomly assigned to receive either 2 years of hormone ablation with leuprorelin acetate 11.25 mg as a subcutaneous injection every three months or six courses of CMF (cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m2, methotrexate 40 mg/m2, fluorouracil 600 mg/m2, days 1 and 8, q 4 weeks). The primary study end-point was recurrence-free survival (RFS) after 2 years. Secondary end-points included overall survival, adverse events and hormonal suppression.
                Between 1995 and 1999, a total of 589 patients with breast cancer were randomized to treatment with leuprorelin acetate or CMF. The data of 227 patients were available for this first interim analysis. One hundred and ten and 117 patients were assigned to leuprorelin acetate and chemotherapy, respectively. Both treatment arms were well balanced for baseline characteristics. So far, no difference between the groups has emerged with respect to recurrence-free or overall survivaL Suppression of serum estradiol levels and menstruation was less marked in the CMF-group compared to the leuprorelin arm. The most common adverse events were low-grade hot flushes, weight gain and increased sweating in the leuprorelin-treated patients and alopecia, nausea and vomiting in the CMF-group.
                According to these preliminary results, ovarian suppression with leuprorelin acetate was as effective as standard chemotherapy for premenopausal women with hormone-sensitive, node-positive early breast cancer. Ovarian suppression plus tamoxifen is a standard adjuvant treatment in premenopausal women with endocrine-responsive breast cancer. Aromatase inhibitors are superior to tamoxifen in postmenopausal patients, and preclinical data suggest that zoledronic acid has antitumor properties.
                We examined the effect of adding zoledronic acid to a combination of either goserelin and tamoxifen or goserelin and anastrozole in premenopausal women with endocrine-responsive early breast cancer. We randomly assigned 1803 patients to receive goserelin (3.6 mg given subcutaneously every 28 days) plus tamoxifen (20 mg per day given orally) or anastrozole (1 mg per day given orally) with or without zoledronic acid (4 mg given intravenously every 6 months) for 3 years. The primary end point was disease-free survival; recurrence-free survival and overall survival were secondary end points.
                After a median follow-up of 47.8 months, 137 events had occurred, with disease-free survival rates of 92.8% in the tamoxifen group, 92.0% in the anastrozole group, 90.8% in the group that received endocrine therapy alone, and 94.0% in the group that received endocrine therapy with zoledronic acid. There was no significant difference in disease-free survival between the anastrozole and tamoxifen groups (hazard ratio for disease progression in the anastrozole group, 1.10; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78 to 1.53; P=0.59). The addition of zoledronic acid to endocrine therapy, as compared with endocrine therapy without zoledronic acid, resulted in an absolute reduction of 3.2 percentage points and a relative reduction of 36% in the risk of disease progression (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.91; P=0.01); the addition of zoledronic acid did not significantly reduce the risk of death (hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.32 to 1.11; P=0.11). Adverse events were consistent with known drug-safety profiles.
                The addition of zoledronic acid to adjuvant endocrine therapy improves disease-free survival in premenopausal patients with estrogen-responsive early breast cancer. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00295646.)
                2009 Massachusetts Medical Society Effective adjuvant treatment modalities in premenopausal breast cancer patients today include chemotherapy, ovariectomy, and tamoxifen administration. The purpose of Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group Trial 5 was to compare the efficacy of a combination endocrine treatment with standard chemotherapy.
                Assessable trial subjects (N = 1,034) presenting with hormone-responsive disease were randomized to receive either 3 years of goserelin plus 5 years of tamoxifen or six cycles of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF). Stratification criteria included tumor stage and grade, number of involved nodes, type of surgery, and steroid hormone receptor content. Relapse-free survival (RFS) was defined as time from randomization to first relapse, local recurrence, or contralateral incidence, and overall survival (OS) as time to date of death.
                With a 60-month median follow-up, 17.2% of patients in the endocrine group and 20.8% undergoing chemotherapy developed relapses. Local recurrences emerged in 4.7% and 8.0%, respectively. RFS and local recurrence-free survival differed significantly in favor of endocrine therapy (P =.037 and P =.015), with a similar trend observed in OS (P =.195).
                Overall, our data suggest that the goserelin-tamoxifen combination is significantly more effective than CMF in the adjuvant treatment of premenopausal patients with stage I and II breast cancer.
Overall, the data from currently published clinical trials of LHRH agonists in the adjuvant setting for premenopausal women with endocrine-sensitive breast cancer are supportive of clinical benefit. Nonetheless, definitive comparisons against current clinical standards of care that include third generation chemotherapy regimens and tamoxifen are required before their place in the adjuvant setting can be properly defined. The authors conclude that the current data strongly support the continuation of current trials that definitively compare a variety of combinations of LHRH agonists and anti-oestrogenic strategies to the current standard of five years of tamoxifen.