PURPOSE: Twenty-seven percent of responding metastatic breast cancer patients remain progression-free a median 29 months following one intensification course of cyclophosphamide (6,000 mg/m2), thiotepa (500 mg/m2), and carboplatin (800 mg/m2) (CTCb) with autologous bone marrow transplantation (ABMT). European investigators report high complete response (CR) rates with melphalan for breast cancer. This trial studied the feasibility of two tandem high-dose intensification therapies in an attempt to optimize disease response and duration. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women with at least partial responses (PRs) to induction therapy received melphalan (140 to 180 mg/m2), followed 24 hours later by chemotherapy and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF)-mobilized peripheral-blood progenitor cells (PBPCs) and subsequent G-CSF until WBC recovery. The women were monitored as outpatients. After recovery, patients were hospitalized for CTCb with marrow, PBPC, and G-CSF support. RESULTS: Twenty women were assessable. Fourteen (70%) required admission for fever (10% infection) or mucositis (35%) after melphalan (median stay, 5 days). Median days of absolute neutrophil count (ANC) less than 500/microL and platelet count less than 20,000/microL were 6 and 5.5, respectively. Patients received CTCb 25 days after starting melphalan and had a hospital stay of 25 days. After CTCb, median days of ANC less than 500/microL and platelet count less than 20,000/microL were 11.5 and 24, respectively. Grade 3 toxicities included venoocclusive disease (VOD) (10%), mucositis (45%), and infection (20%). Toxicities were reversible without mortality. CONCLUSION: With mobilized PBPCs and growth factors, double dose-intensive chemotherapy is feasible with acceptable toxicity. When compared with trials using marrow alone, these supportive adjuncts decrease sepsis and organ toxicity. The concepts of dose and dose-intensity may now be more effectively and safely studied in chemosensitive tumors, including breast cancer.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ayash et al. (1994) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: