Taxol-type Drugs Give Slight Boost To Survival Rates In Early Breast Cancer
Main Category: Breast CancerArticle Date: 17 Oct 2007 - 0:00 PDT
The breast cancer drugs called taxanes, which include Taxol (paclitaxel) and Taxotere (docetaxel), increase survival rates when used as part of chemotherapy following surgery for cancers that have not spread, according to a new review of the research.
The review, which compared chemotherapy regimes using taxanes with those that did not, comprised 12 studies including 21,191 women.
"For patients, this study confirms that including taxanes in an adjuvant chemotherapy regimen for early breast cancer will improve their chance of living longer and remaining free of breast cancer," said review coauthor, Anna Nowak, M.D. "It also provides reassurance that there are many different ways of giving a taxane and that the individual choice of regimen may not be critical."
Taxanes increased overall survival by 2.6 percent and survival with no recurrence of the cancer by 4.1 percent, when compared to regimens without taxanes, the reviewers found.
Although the data appear to show that docetaxel is slightly better, this type of analysis cannot compare one drug to another accurately. "This hypothesis would be better tested in a clinical trial directly comparing the two drugs. Such trials are being done," said Nowak, a medical oncologist at the University of Sydney in Australia.
The review appears in the latest issue of The Cochrane Library, a publication of The Cochrane Collaboration, an international organization that evaluates medical research. Systematic reviews draw evidence-based conclusions about medical practice after considering both the content and quality of existing medical trials on a topic.
Some researchers have argued that taxanes themselves are no better than other kinds of chemotherapy for breast cancer and that the results of previous trials just showed that more and longer chemotherapy in general was better.
"These have been past criticisms of some of the earlier taxane trials," Nowak said. "I think that hypothesis has been disproved by this study."
"It looks like taxanes are beneficial," said Kay Dickersin, Ph.D., director of the Center for Clinical Trials at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. Dickersin, who was not involved with the review, said that the studies analyzed appeared to be of good quality, which strengthens the result.
"For physicians, the study also demonstrates that there are numerous effective regimens and that there is no clear message that taxanes must be given together with anthracyclines, or as an extra drug, or for a longer number of cycles. This allows physicians to tailor the regimen to the individual patient in terms of side effects, duration and convenience," Nowak said.
She added that there was no increase in secondary leukemia associated with these drugs, at least during the patient follow-up periods so far, which had been a concern.
The review did confirm that certain side effects were higher among those treated with taxanes, including neurotoxicity (in this case, numbness, tingling, and/or weakness in hands and feet due to damage to nerves) and febrile neutropenia an infection that results from low white blood cell counts, which can be fatal. "However it was encouraging to see no additional treatment-related deaths in the taxane group," Nowak said.
There were also lower rates of nausea among those treated with taxanes and the review found that some regimens of these drugs were less likely to be harmful to the heart.
The studies showed that replacing another kind of drug called an anthracycline with a taxane could reduce the risk of heart damage. "This will also help physicians to choose a safer regimen in women who may be at higher risk of this complication," Nowak said.
Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women, affecting more than 1 million worldwide each year and killing some 400,000 annually. One in eight American women will receive a breast cancer diagnosis over the course of a lifetime. Thirty percent of those diagnosed will die from it.
Dickersin said that while research reviews often serve as guidance tools for doctors in clinical practice, they should also help researchers identify unanswered questions. "It is still unclear which women gain the most benefit from the inclusion of taxanes," Nowak said.
Also unknown is whether taxanes are more beneficial to women whose tumors grow in response to the hormone estrogen or to those whose tumors are not hormone-sensitive, and whether these drugs are more or less effective in women with certain genetic predispositions to the disease.
Nowak and one of the other four review authors report that drug companies that manufacture taxanes have previously paid them for some travel expenses and lectures. Dickersin who is director of the U.S. Cochrane Center, one of 12 such centers around the world said that Cochrane rules on allowable potential conflicts of interest are much stricter than other guidelines, including those of many medical journals and organizations.
The Cochrane Collaboration is an international nonprofit, independent organization that produces and disseminates systematic reviews of health care interventions and promotes the search for evidence in the form of clinical trials and other studies of interventions. Visit http://www.cochrane.org for more information.
Ferguson T, et al. Taxanes for adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer (Review). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 4.
Health Behavior News Service
Center for the Advancement of Health 2000 Florida Ave. NW, Ste 210
Washington, DC 20009
United States
http://www.hbns.org
Visit our breast cancer section for the latest news on this subject.
MLA
13 Feb. 2012. <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/85729.php>
APA
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/85729.php.
Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.
|
Rate this article: (Hover over the stars then click to rate) |
Patient / Public: |
or |
Health Professional: |
Visitor Opinions In Chronological Order (1)
Drug Selection In Breast Cancer Treatment
posted by Gregory D. Pawelski on 18 Oct 2007 at 7:27 amThe article states that some researchers have argued that taxanes themselves are no better than other kinds of chemotherapy for breast cancer. What may support this?
The American Society of Clinical Oncologists (ASCO) says oncologists should make chemotherapy treatment recommendations on the basis of published reports of clinical trials and a patient's health status and treatment preferences.
So what about those published reports of clinical trials?
More chemotherapy is given for breast cancer than for any other form of cancer and there have been more published reports of clinical trials for breast cancer than for any other form of cancer.
According to the National Cancer Institute’s official cancer information website on "state of the art" chemotherapy for breast cancer, it is unclear whether single-agent chemotherapy or combination chemotherapy is preferable for first-line treatment. At this time, no data support the superiority of any particular regimen. So, it would appear that published reports of clinical trials provide precious little in the way of guidance (1).
In the total absence of guidance from published reports of clinical trials then, what basis are treatment regimens selected instead? ASCO says that this should be further based on a patient's health status and patient treatment preferences.
So what is being done?
Published in the journal Health Affairs is a joint Harvard/Michigan study entitled, "Does reimbursement influence chemotherapy treatment for cancer patients?" The authors documented a clear association between reimbursement to the oncologists for the chemotherapy of breast, lung, and colorectal cancer and the regimens which the oncologists selected for the patients. In other words, oncologists tended to base their treatment decisions on which regimen provided the greatest financial remuneration to the oncologist (2).
A March 8, 2006 New York Times article described the study. One of the more interesting aspects of the story was a comment from an executive with ASCO, Dr. Joseph S. Bailes, who disputed the study's findings, saying that cancer doctors select treatments only on the basis of clinical evidence (3).
So ASCO's Dr. Bailes maintains that drugs are chosen only on the basis of "clinical evidence."
Yet Dr. Neil Love reported a survey of breast cancer oncologists based in academic medical centers and community based, private practice medical oncologists. The former oncologists do not derive personal profit from the administration of infusion chemotherapy, the latter oncologists do derive personal profit from infusion chemotherapy, while deriving no profit from prescribing oral-dosed chemotherapy.
The results of the survey could not have been more clear-cut. For first line chemotherapy of metastatic breast cancer, 84-88% of the academic center-based oncologists (who are motivated to keep off-protocol patients out of their chemotherapy infusion rooms to reserve these rooms for on-protocol patients) prescribed an oral-dose drug (capecitabine), while only 13% prescribed infusion drugs, and none of them prescribed the expensive, highly remunerative drug docetaxel.
In contrast, among the commuity-based oncologists, only 18% prescribed the non-remunerative oral-dose drug (capecitabine), while 75% prescribed remunerative infusion drugs, and about 40% prescribed the expensive, highly remunerative drug docetaxel (4).
While the Michigan/Harvard study showed results before the new Medicare reform, the Patterns of Care study showed results that the Medicare reforms are still not working. It is still an impossible conflict of interest.
Two studies giving us a dose of reality that once a decision to give chemotherapy is taken, oncologists receiving more-generous Medicare reimbursements used more-costly treatment regimens.
Some oncologists prescribe chemotherapy drugs with equal efficacies and toxicities. I would imagine that some are influenced by the whole state of affairs, possibly without even entirely admitting it. There are so many ways for humans to rationalize their behavior.
Sources:
(1) http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/p...e8#Section_297
(2) http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi...tract/25/2/437
(3) http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/08/he...71de&ei=5 070
(4) http://patternsofcare.com/2005/1/editor.htm (figure 37, volume 2, issue 1, 2005)
Add Your Opinion
Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.
If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.
All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam)
Contact Our News Editors
For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.
![]()
Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:
Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.





