Top

Supportive Care in Cancer

Published in:

01-03-2011 | Review Article

Filling in the gaps: reporting of concurrent supportive care therapies in breast cancer chemotherapy trials

Authors: Orit Freedman, Eitan Amir, Camilla Zimmermann, Mark Clemons

Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer | Issue 3/2011

Abstract

Background

Supportive care interventions can have a substantial impact on side effects of chemotherapy. Consequently, accurate reporting of such interventions is essential when interpreting clinical trial results. This study determined the prevalence and quality of reporting of supportive care treatment for common chemotherapy-induced toxicities in phase III, breast cancer chemotherapy trials.

Methods

A systematic review of phase III trials of breast cancer trials incorporating chemotherapy published in the last 5 years was undertaken. Trials were identified through MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, and the Cochrane Library. Supportive treatments evaluated were use of antiemetics, colony-stimulating growth factors, and antibiotics. Reporting quality was rated as “good”, “fair”, “poor”, or “absent” using predetermined criteria.

Results

Sixty-two trials met inclusion criteria. In 41 studies (66%), details regarding prophylactic antiemetic treatment were not provided. Growth factor use was not reported in 20 trials (32%). Instructions for the use of prophylactic antibiotics were absent in 45 trials (72%).

Conclusion

There are significant deficiencies in reporting of use of prophylactic supportive care agents in breast cancer trials. Omission of supportive care instructions may impact substantially on patient management and health care system expenditure. Recommendations for the type, dose, and frequency of supportive care drugs should be provided and reported on in trials.

Schultz KF (1996) Randomised trials, human nature, and reporting guidelines. Lancet 348:596–598CrossRef

Armitage P (1982) The role of randomization in clinical trials. Stat Med 1:345–352PubMedCrossRef

Lorenz KA (2008) Progress in quality-of-care research and hope for supportive cancer care. J Clin Oncol 26:3821–3823PubMedCrossRef

Carelle N, Piotto E, Bellanger A, Germanaud J, Thuillier A, Khayat D (2002) Changing patient perceptions of the side effects of cancer chemotherapy. Cancer 95:155–163PubMedCrossRef

Mosteller F, Gilbert JP, McPeek B (1980) Reporting standards and research strategies for controlled trials: agenda for the editor. Control Clin Trials 1:37–58CrossRef

Ioannidis JP, Contopoulos-Ioannidis DP (1998) Reporting of safety data from randomised trials. Lancet 352:1752–1753PubMedCrossRef

Warr DG, Hesketh PJ, Gralla RJ et al (2005) Efficacy and tolerability of aprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with breast cancer after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 23:2822–2830PubMedCrossRef

von Minckwitz G, Kummel S, du Bois A et al (2008) Pegfilgrastim +/− ciprofloxacin for primary prophylaxis with TAC (docetaxel/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide) chemotherapy for breast cancer. Results from the GEPARTRIO study. Ann Oncol 19:292–298CrossRef

Gralla RJ, Itri LM, Pisko SE et al (1981) Antiemetic efficacy of high-dose metoclopramide: randomized trials with placebo and prochlorperazine in patients with chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. N Engl J Med 305:905–909PubMedCrossRef

10.

Gralla RJ, Osoba D, Kris MG et al (1999) Recommendations for the use of antiemetics: evidence-based, clinical practice guidelines. American Society of Clinical Oncology. J Clin Oncol 17:2971–2994PubMed

11.

Warr DG, Grunberg SM, Gralla RJ et al (2005) The oral NK(1) antagonist aprepitant for the prevention of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: pooled data from 2 randomised, double-blind, placebo controlled trials. Eur J Cancer 41:1278–1285PubMedCrossRef

12.

Gabrilove JL, Jakubowski A, Scher H et al (1988) Effect of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor on neutropenia and associated morbidity due to chemotherapy for transitional cell carcinoma of the urothelium. N Engl J Med 318:1414–1422PubMedCrossRef

13.

Office for Human Research Protections. International Compilation of Human Research Protections 2009 Edition. US Department of Health and Human Services. Available at: http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/international/HSPCompilation.pdf. Accessed on 18 Mar 2009.

14.

Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D et al (2001) The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 134:663–694PubMed

15.

Frasci G, D'Aiuto G, Comella P et al (2006) Weekly cisplatin, epirubicin, and paclitaxel with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor support vs triweekly epirubicin and paclitaxel in locally advanced breast cancer: final analysis of a SICOG phase III study. Br J Cancer 95:1005–1012PubMedCrossRef

16.

Langley RE, Carmichael J, Jones AL et al (2005) Phase III trial of epirubicin plus paclitaxel compared with epirubicin plus cyclophosphamide as first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer: United Kingdom National Cancer Research Institute trial AB01. J Clin Oncol 23:8322–8330PubMedCrossRef

17.

Fountzilas G, Skarlos D, Dafni U et al (2005) Postoperative dose-dense sequential chemotherapy with epirubicin, followed by CMF with or without paclitaxel, in patients with high-risk operable breast cancer: a randomized phase III study conducted by the Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group. Ann Oncol 16:1762–1771PubMedCrossRef

18.

Fountzilas G, Kalofonos HP, Dafni U et al (2004) Paclitaxel and epirubicin versus paclitaxel and carboplatin as first-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced breast cancer: a phase III study conducted by the Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group. Ann Oncol 15:1517–1526PubMedCrossRef

19.

Reyno L, Seymour L, Tu D et al (2004) Phase III study of N, N-diethyl-2-[4-(phenylmethyl) phenoxy]ethanamine (BMS-217380–01) combined with doxorubicin versus doxorubicin alone in metastatic/recurrent breast cancer: National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group Study MA.19. J Clin Oncol 22:269–276PubMedCrossRef

20.

Pacilio C, Morabito A, Nuzzo F et al (2006) Is epirubicin effective in first-line chemotherapy of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) after an epirubicin-containing adjuvant treatment? A single centre phase III trial. Br J Cancer 94:1233–1236PubMedCrossRef

21.

Bontenbal M, Creemers GJ, Braun HJ et al (2005) Phase II to III study comparing doxorubicin and docetaxel with fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide as first-line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer: results of a Dutch Community Setting Trial for the Clinical Trial Group of the Comprehensive Cancer Centre. J Clin Oncol 23:7081–7088PubMedCrossRef

22.

Chua S, Smith IE, A'Hern RP et al (2005) Neoadjuvant vinorelbine/epirubicin (VE) versus standard adriamycin/cyclophosphamide (AC) in operable breast cancer: analysis of response and tolerability in a randomised phase III trial (TOPIC 2). Ann Oncol 16:1435–1441PubMedCrossRef

23.

O'Brien ME, Wigler N, Inbar M et al (2004) Reduced cardiotoxicity and comparable efficacy in a phase III trial of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin HCl (CAELYX/Doxil) versus conventional doxorubicin for first-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol 15:440–449PubMedCrossRef

24.

von Minckwitz G, Raab G, Caputo A et al (2005) Doxorubicin with cyclophosphamide followed by docetaxel every 21 days compared with doxorubicin and docetaxel every 14 days as preoperative treatment in operable breast cancer: the GEPARDUO study of the German Breast Group. J Clin Oncol 23:2676–2685CrossRef

25.

von Minckwitz G, Kummel S, Vogel P et al (2008) Neoadjuvant vinorelbine-capecitabine versus docetaxel-doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide in early nonresponsive breast cancer: phase III randomized GeparTrio trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 100:542–551CrossRef

26.

Schmid P, Untch M, Kosse V et al (2007) Leuprorelin acetate every 3 months depot versus cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil as adjuvant treatment in premenopausal patients with node-positive breast cancer: the TABLE study. J Clin Oncol 25:2509–2515PubMedCrossRef

27.

Kerbrat P, Roche H, Bonneterre J et al (2007) Epirubicin-vinorelbine vs FEC100 for node-positive, early breast cancer: French Adjuvant Study Group 09 trial. Br J Cancer 96:1633–1638PubMedCrossRef

28.

Ejlertsen B, Mouridsen HT, Jensen MB et al (2007) Improved outcome from substituting methotrexate with epirubicin: results from a randomised comparison of CMF versus CEF in patients with primary breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 43:877–884PubMedCrossRef

29.

Poole CJ, Earl HM, Hiller L et al (2006) Epirubicin and cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil as adjuvant therapy for early breast cancer. N Eng J Med 355:1851–1862CrossRef

30.

Gradishar WJ, Tjulandin S, Davidson N et al (2005) Phase III trial of nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel compared with polyethylated castor oil-based paclitaxel in women with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 23:7794–7803PubMedCrossRef

31.

Jones SE, Erban J, Overmoyer B et al (2005) Randomized phase III study of docetaxel compared with paclitaxel in metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 23:5542–5551PubMedCrossRef

32.

Martin M, Pienkowski T, Mackey J et al (2005) Adjuvant docetaxel for node-positive breast cancer. N Eng J Med 352:2302–2313CrossRef

33.

Schmid P, Schippinger W, Nitsch T et al (2005) Up-front tandem high-dose chemotherapy compared with standard chemotherapy with doxorubicin and paclitaxel in metastatic breast cancer: results of a randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 23:432–440PubMedCrossRef

34.

Smith IE, A'Hern RP, Coombes GA et al (2004) A novel continuous infusional 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy regimen compared with conventional chemotherapy in the neo-adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer: 5 year results of the TOPIC trial. Ann Oncol 15:751–758PubMedCrossRef

35.

Martin M, Villar A, Sole-Calvo A et al (2003) Doxorubicin in combination with fluorouracil and cyclophosphamide (i.v. FAC regimen, day 1, 21) versus methotrexate in combination with fluorouracil and cyclophosphamide (i.v. CMF regimen, day 1, 21) as adjuvant chemotherapy for operable breast cancer: a study by the GEICAM group. Ann Oncol 14:833–842PubMedCrossRef

36.

Miller K, Wang M, Gralow J et al (2007) Paclitaxel plus bevacizumab versus paclitaxel alone for metastatic breast cancer. N Eng J Med 357:2666–2676CrossRef

37.

Thomas ES, Gomez HL, Li RK et al (2007) Ixabepilone plus capecitabine for metastatic breast cancer progressing after anthracycline and taxane treatment. J Clin Oncol 25:5210–5217PubMedCrossRef

38.

Pandya KJ, Hu P, Osborne CK et al (2007) Phase III study of standard combination versus rotating regimen of induction chemotherapy in patients with hormone insensitive metastatic breast cancer: an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Intergroup Study (E3185). Am J Clin Oncol 30:113–125PubMedCrossRef

39.

Geyer CE, Forster J, Lindquist D et al (2006) Lapatinib plus capecitabine for HER2-positive advanced breast cancer. N Eng J Med 355:2733–2743CrossRef

40.

Levy C, Fumoleau P (2005) Gemcitabine plus docetaxel: a new treatment option for anthracycline pretreated metastatic breast cancer patients? Cancer Treat Rev 31(Suppl 4):S17–S22PubMedCrossRef

41.

Evans TR, Yellowlees A, Foster E et al (2005) Phase III randomized trial of doxorubicin and docetaxel versus doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide as primary medical therapy in women with breast cancer: an Anglo-Celtic Cooperative Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol 23:2988–2995PubMedCrossRef

42.

Zielinski C, Beslija S, Mrsic-Krmpotic Z et al (2005) Gemcitabine, epirubicin, and paclitaxel versus fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide as first-line chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer: a Central European Cooperative Oncology Group International, multicenter, prospective, randomized phase III trial. J Clin Oncol 23:1401–1408PubMedCrossRef

43.

Icli F, Akbulut H, Uner A et al (2005) Cisplatin plus oral etoposide (EoP) combination is more effective than paclitaxel in patients with advanced breast cancer pretreated with anthracyclines: a randomised phase III trial of Turkish Oncology Group. Br J Cancer 92(4):639–644PubMedCrossRef

44.

Miller KD, Chap LI, Holmes FA et al (2005) Randomized phase III trial of capecitabine compared with bevacizumab plus capecitabine in patients with previously treated metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 23:792–799PubMedCrossRef

45.

Keller AM, Mennel RG, Georgoulias VA et al (2004) Randomized phase III trial of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin versus vinorelbine or mitomycin C plus vinblastine in women with taxane-refractory advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 22:3893–3901PubMedCrossRef

46.

Ejlertsen B, Mouridsen HT, Langkjer ST et al (2004) Phase III study of intravenous vinorelbine in combination with epirubicin versus epirubicin alone in patients with advanced breast cancer: a Scandinavian Breast Group Trial (SBG9403). J Clin Oncol 22:2313–2320PubMedCrossRef

47.

Parnes HL, Cirrincione C, Aisner J et al (2003) Phase III study of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and fluorouracil (CAF) plus leucovorin versus CAF for metastatic breast cancer: Cancer and Leukemia Group B 9140. J Clin Oncol 21:1819–1824PubMedCrossRef

48.

Therasse P, Mauriac L, Welnicka-Jaskiewicz M et al (2003) Final results of a randomized phase III trial comparing cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and fluorouracil with a dose-intensified epirubicin and cyclophosphamide + filgrastim as neoadjuvant treatment in locally advanced breast cancer: an EORTC-NCIC-SAKK multicenter study. J Clin Oncol 21:843–850PubMedCrossRef

49.

Sledge GW, Neuberg D, Bernardo P et al (2003) Phase III trial of doxorubicin, paclitaxel, and the combination of doxorubicin and paclitaxel as front-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer: an intergroup trial (E1193). J Clin Oncol 21:588–592PubMedCrossRef

50.

Baldini E, Gardin G, Giannessi PG et al (2003) Accelerated versus standard cyclophosphamide, epirubicin and 5-fluorouracil or cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil: a randomized phase III trial in locally advanced breast cancer. Ann Oncol 14:227–232PubMedCrossRef

51.

Bonneterre J, Roche H, Monnier A et al (2002) Docetaxel vs 5-fluorouracil plus vinorelbine in metastatic breast cancer after anthracycline therapy failure. Br J Cancer 87:1210–1215PubMedCrossRef

52.

Seidman AD, Berry D, Cirrincione C et al (2008) Randomized phase III trial of weekly compared with every-3-weeks paclitaxel for metastatic breast cancer, with trastuzumab for all HER-2 overexpressors and random assignment to trastuzumab or not in HER-2 nonoverexpressors: final results of Cancer and Leukemia Group B protocol 9840. J Clin Oncol 26:1642–1649PubMedCrossRef

53.

Rivera E, Mejia JA, Arun BK et al (2008) Phase 3 study comparing the use of docetaxel on an every-3-week versus weekly schedule in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Cancer 112:1455–1461PubMedCrossRef

54.

Francis P, Crown J, Di LA et al (2008) Adjuvant chemotherapy with sequential or concurrent anthracycline and docetaxel: Breast International Group 02-98 randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 100:121–133PubMedCrossRef

55.

Martin M, Ruiz A, Munoz M et al (2007) Gemcitabine plus vinorelbine versus vinorelbine monotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer previously treated with anthracyclines and taxanes: final results of the phase III Spanish Breast Cancer Research Group (GEICAM) trial. Lancet Oncol 8:219–225PubMedCrossRef

56.

Linden HM, Haskell CM, Green SJ et al (2007) Sequenced compared with simultaneous anthracycline and cyclophosphamide in high-risk stage I and II breast cancer: final analysis from INT-0137 (S9313). J Clin Oncol 25:656–661PubMedCrossRef

57.

Jones SE, Savin MA, Holmes FA et al (2006) Phase III trial comparing doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide with docetaxel plus cyclophosphamide as adjuvant therapy for operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 24:5381–5387PubMedCrossRef

58.

Harvey V, Mouridsen H, Semiglazov V et al (2006) Phase III trial comparing three doses of docetaxel for second-line treatment of advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 24:4963–4970PubMedCrossRef

59.

Roche H, Kerbrat P, Bonneterre J et al (2006) Complete hormonal blockade versus epirubicin-based chemotherapy in premenopausal, one to three node-positive, and hormone-receptor positive, early breast cancer patients: 7-year follow-up results of French Adjuvant Study Group 06 randomised trial. Ann Oncol 17:1221–1227PubMedCrossRef

60.

Robert N, Leyland-Jones B, Asmar L et al (2006) Randomized phase III study of trastuzumab, paclitaxel, and carboplatin compared with trastuzumab and paclitaxel in women with HER-2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 24:2786–2792PubMedCrossRef

61.

Rouesse J, de la Lande B, Bertheault-Cvitkovic F et al (2006) A phase III randomized trial comparing adjuvant concomitant chemoradiotherapy versus standard adjuvant chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy in operable node-positive breast cancer: final results. Int J Rad Oncol 64:1072–1080CrossRef

62.

Green MC, Buzdar AU, Smith T et al (2005) Weekly paclitaxel improves pathologic complete remission in operable breast cancer when compared with paclitaxel once every 3 weeks. J Clin Oncol 23:5983–5992PubMedCrossRef

63.

Alba E, Martin M, Ramos M et al (2004) Multicenter randomized trial comparing sequential with concomitant administration of doxorubicin and docetaxel as first-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer: a Spanish Breast Cancer Research Group (GEICAM-9903) phase III study. J Clin Oncol 22:2587–2593PubMedCrossRef

64.

Chan S, Davidson N, Juozaityte E et al (2004) Phase III trial of liposomal doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide compared with epirubicin and cyclophosphamide as first-line therapy for metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol 15:1527–1534PubMedCrossRef

65.

Papaldo P, Lopez M, Cortesi E et al (2003) Addition of either lonidamine or granulocyte colony-stimulating factor does not improve survival in early breast cancer patients treated with high-dose epirubicin and cyclophosphamide. J Clin Oncol 21:3462–3468PubMedCrossRef

66.

Nabholtz JM, Falkson C, Campos D et al (2003) Docetaxel and doxorubicin compared with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide as first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer: results of a randomized, multicenter, phase III trial. J Clin Oncol 21:968–975PubMedCrossRef

67.

Conte PF, Guarneri V, Bruzzi P et al (2004) Concomitant versus sequential administration of epirubicin and paclitaxel as first-line therapy in metastatic breast carcinoma: results for the Gruppo Oncologico Nord Ovest randomized trial. Cancer 101:704–712PubMedCrossRef

68.

Martin M, Lluch A, Segui MA et al (2006) Toxicity and health-related quality of life in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant docetaxel, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide (TAC) or 5-fluorouracil, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (FAC): impact of adding primary prophylactic granulocyte-colony stimulating factor to the TAC regimen. Ann Oncol 17:1205–1212PubMedCrossRef

69.

Kummel S, Krocker J, Kohls A et al (2006) Randomised trial: survival benefit and safety of adjuvant dose-dense chemotherapy for node-positive breast cancer. Br J Cancer 94:1237–1244PubMedCrossRef

70.

Buzdar AU, Ibrahim NK, Francis D et al (2005) Significantly higher pathologic complete remission rate after neoadjuvant therapy with trastuzumab, paclitaxel, and epirubicin chemotherapy: results of a randomized trial in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 23:3676–3685PubMedCrossRef

71.

Tokuda Y, Tajima T, Narabayashi M et al (2008) Phase III study to evaluate the use of high-dose chemotherapy as consolidation of treatment for high-risk postoperative breast cancer: Japan Clinical Oncology Group study, JCOG 9208. Cancer Sci 99:145–151PubMed

72.

Moore HC, Green SJ, Gralow JR et al (2007) Intensive dose-dense compared with high-dose adjuvant chemotherapy for high-risk operable breast cancer: Southwest Oncology Group/Intergroup study 9623. J Clin Oncol 25:1677–1682PubMedCrossRef

73.

Venturini M, Del ML, Aitini E et al (2005) Dose-dense adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer patients: results from a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 97:1724–1733PubMedCrossRef

74.

Nitz UA, Mohrmann S, Fischer J et al (2005) Comparison of rapidly cycled tandem high-dose chemotherapy plus peripheral-blood stem-cell support versus dose-dense conventional chemotherapy for adjuvant treatment of high-risk breast cancer: results of a multicentre phase III trial. Lancet 366:1935–1944PubMedCrossRef

75.

von Minckwitz G, Chernozemsky I, Sirakova L et al (2005) Bendamustine prolongs progression-free survival in metastatic breast cancer (MBC): a phase III prospective, randomized, multicenter trial of bendamustine hydrochloride, methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil (BMF) versus cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil (CMF) as first-line treatment of MBC. Anticancer Drugs 16:871–877CrossRef

76.

Feher O, Vodvarka P, Jassem J et al (2005) First-line gemcitabine versus epirubicin in postmenopausal women aged 60 or older with metastatic breast cancer: a multicenter, randomized, phase III study. Ann Oncol 16:899–908PubMedCrossRef

77.

Jones SE, Holmes FA, O'Shaughnessy J et al (2009) Docetaxel with cyclophosphamide is associated with an overall survival benefit compared with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide: 7-year follow-up of US Oncology Research Trial 9735. J Clin Oncol 27:1177–1183PubMedCrossRef

78.

Soong D, Haj R, Leung MG et al (2009) High rate of febrile neutropenia in patients with operable breast cancer receiving docetaxel and cyclophosphamide. J Clin Oncol 27(26):e101–e102PubMedCrossRef

79.

Drummond MF, Richardson WS, O’Brien BJ et al (1997) Users’ guides to the medical literature: XIII. How to use an article on economic analysis of clinical practice. Part A: are the results of the study valid? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 277:1552–1557PubMedCrossRef

80.

O’Brien BJ, Heyland D, Richardson WS et al (1997) Users’ guides to the medical literature: XIII. How to use an article on economic analysis of clinical practice. Part B: what are the results and will they help me in caring for my patients? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 277:1802–1806PubMedCrossRef

81.

Martin DK, Pater JL, Singer PA (2001) Priority-setting decisions for new cancer drugs: a qualitative case study. Lancet 358:1676–1681PubMedCrossRef

Title: Filling in the gaps: reporting of concurrent supportive care therapies in breast cancer chemotherapy trials
Authors: Orit Freedman
Eitan Amir
Camilla Zimmermann
Mark Clemons
Publication date: 01-03-2011
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer / Issue 3/2011
Print ISSN: 0941-4355
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7339
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-010-1069-5

Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras

Prof. Fabrice Barlesi

Developed by: Springer Medicine

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 3/2011

Development and validation of a prediction model for the risk of developing febrile neutropenia in the first cycle of chemotherapy among elderly patients with breast, lung, colorectal, and prostate cancer

Interaction of gonadal status with systemic inflammation and opioid use in determining nutritional status and prognosis in advanced pancreatic cancer

The use of fentanyl buccal tablets as breakthrough medication in patients receiving chronic methadone therapy: an open label preliminary study

Patients’ views about causes and preferences for the management of cancer-related fatigue—a case for non-congruence with the physicians?

Can malignant bowel obstruction in advanced cancer patients be treated at home?

Attitude of Italian medical oncologists toward palliative care for patients with advanced cancer: results of the SIO project

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer