Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Operable breast cancer

  • Published:
Current Treatment Options in Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Opinion statement

Breast cancer is the most common malignancy among American women. As a result of widespread screening, most patients present with operable breast cancer that is treated with curative intent. It is well established that the appropriate use of adjuvant therapy improves the disease-free and overall survival of patients with breast cancer. Adjuvant systemic therapy options include tamoxifen for hormone receptorpositive patients, and systemic polychemotherapy. It is standard clinical practice to administer adjuvant systemic therapy to patients with node-positive and high-risk, node-negative breast cancer.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References and Recommended Reading

  1. Landis SH, Murray T, Bolden S, et al.: Cancer statistics, 1998. CA Cancer J Clin 1998, 48:6–29.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Mettlin C: Global breast cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 1999, 49:138–144.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Bland KI, Menck HR, Scott-Connor CE, et al.:The National Cancer Data Base 10-year survey of breast cancer treatment at hospitals in the United States. Cancer 1998, 83:1262–1273.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. NIH Consensus Conference Recommendations available at www.nih.gov/news/pr/nov2000/omar-03.htm

  5. Fisher B, Gebhardt MC: The evolution of breast cancer surgery: past, present and future. Semin Oncol 1978, 5:385.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Saez RA, McGuire WL, Clark GM: Prognostic factors in breast cancer. Semin Surg Oncol 1989, 5:102.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Nemoto T, Natarajan N, Bedwani R, et al.: Breast cancer in the medial half; results of the 1978 national survey of the American College of Surgeons. Cancer 1983, 51:1333.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Fisher B, Bauer M, Wickerham DL, et al.: Relation of the number of positive axillary nodes to the prognosis of patients with primary breast cancer: an NSABP update. Cancer 1983, 52:1551.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Fisher B, Slack NH, Bross IDJ, et al.: Cancer of the breast: size of neoplasm and prognosis. Cancer 1969, 24:1071.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Koscielny S, Tubiana M, Le MG, et al.: Breast cancer: relationship between the size of the primary tumour and the probability of metastatic dissemination. Br J Cancer 1984, 49:709.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Carter CL, Allen C, Henson DE: Relation of tumor size, lymph node status and survival in 24,740 breast cancer cases. Cancer 1989, 63:181.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Rosen PP, Groshen S, Saigo PE, et al.: Pathological prognostic factors in stage I (T1N0M0) and stage II (T1N1M0) breast carcinoma: a study of 644 patients with median follow-up of 18 years. J Clin Oncol 1989, 7:1239.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Andrulis IL, Bull SB, Blackstein ME, et al.: neu/erbB-2 amplification identifies a poor-prognosis group of women with node-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1998, 16:1340–1349.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Slamon DJ, Clark GM, Wong SG, et al.: Human breast cancer: correlation of relapse and survival with amplification of the HER-2/neu oncogene. Science 1987, 235:177–182.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Allred DC, Clark GM, Tandon AK, et al.: HER-2/ neu in node-negative breast cancer: prognostic significance of overexpression influenced by the presence of in situ carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 1992, 10:599–605.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Paik S, Bryant J, Park C, et al.: erbB-2 and response to doxorubicin in patients with axillary lymph nodepositive hormone receptor-negative breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998, 90:1361–1370.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Thor AD, Berry DA, Budman DR, et al.: erbB-2, p53, and efficacy of adjuvant therapy in lymph nodepositive breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998, 90:1346–1360.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Hutchins l, Green S, Ravdin P, et al.: CMF versus CAF with and without tamoxifen in high-risk nodenegative breast cancer patients and a natural history follow-up study in low-risk node-negative patients: first results of intergroup trial INT 0102. Proc ASCO 1998, 17:2.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Swain SM, Sorace RA, Bagley CS, et al.: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the combined modality approach of locally advanced nonmetastatic breast cancer. Cancer Res 1987, 47:3889.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Balawajder I, Antich PP, Boland J: An analysis of the role of radiotherapy alone and in combination with chemotherapy and surgery in the management of advanced breast cancer. Cancer 1983, 51:574.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Hortobagyi GN, Blumenschein GR, Spanos W, et al.:Multimodality treatment of locoregionally advanced breast cancer. Cancer 1983, 51:763.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Perloff M, Lesnick GJ, Korzun A, et al.: Combination chemotherapy with mastectomy or radiotherapy for stage III breast carcinoma: a cancer and leukemia group B study. J Clin Oncol 1998, 6:261.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Bonadonna G, Valagussa P, Brambilla C, et al.: Adjuvant and neoadjuvant treatment of breast cancer with chemotherapy and/or endocrine therapy. Semin Oncol 1991, 18:515–524.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Fisher B, Brown A, Mamounas E, et al.: Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on the outcome of women with operable breast cancer: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-18. J Clin Oncol 1997, 15:2483.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Fisher B, Bryant J, Wolmark N, et al.: Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on the outcome of women with operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1998, 16:2672.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Cole MP: A clinical trial of artificial menopause in carcinoma of the breast. INSERM 1975, 55:143.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group: Ovarian ablation in early breast cancer: overview of the randomised trials. Lancet 1996, 348:1189–1196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group: Tamoxifen for early breast cancer: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet 1998, 351:1451–1467. Details the benefits of tamoxifen as adjuvant therapy for primary breast cancer.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Fisher B, Digham J, Bryant J, et al.: Five versus more than five years of tamoxifen therapy for breast cancer patients with negative lymph nodes and estrogen receptor-positive tumors. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996, 88:1529–1542.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Tormey DC, Gray R, Falkson HC: Postchemotherapy adjuvant tamoxifen therapy beyond five years in patients with lymph node-positive breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996, 88:1828.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Stewart HJ, Forrest AP, Everington D, et al.: Randomized comparison of 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen with continuous therapy for operable breast cancer. The Scottish Cancer Trials Breast Group. Br J Cancer 1996, 74:297.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Fisher B, Constantino JP, Wickerham Dl, et al.: Tamoxifen for prevention of breast cancer: report of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 Study. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998, 90:1371–1388.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group: Polychemotherapy for early breast cancer: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet 1998, 352:930–942. Details the benefits of polychemotherapy as adjuvant therapy for primary breast cancer.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Fisher B, Anderson S, Wolmark N, et al.: Chemotherapy with or without tamoxifen for patients with ER negative cancer and negative nodes: results from NSABP B23. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2000, 19:277.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Levine MN, Bramwell VH, Pritchard KI, et al.: Randomized trial of intensive cyclophosphamide, epirubicin and 5-fluorouracil chemotherapy compared with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil in premenopausal women with node-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1998, 16:2651–2658.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Bonneterre J, Roche H, Bremond A, et al.: Results of a randomized trial of adjuvant chemotherapy with FEC-50 versus FEC-100 in high-risk node-positive breast cancer patients. Proc ASCO 1998, 17:473.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Henderson IC, Berry D, Demetri G, et al.: Improved disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS) from the addition of sequential paclitaxel (T) but not from the escalation of doxorubicin (A) dose level in the adjuvant chemotherapy of patients (PTS) with node-positive primary breast cancer (BC). Proc ASCO 1998, 17:101a.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Fisher B, Anderson S, Wickerham DL, et al.: Increased intensification and total dose of cyclophosphamide in a doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide regimen for the treatment of primary breast cancer: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-22. J Clin Oncol 1997, 15:1858.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Fisher B, Anderson S, DeCillis A, et al.: Further evaluation of intensified and increased total dose of cyclophosphamide for the treatment of primary breast cancer: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-25. J Clin Oncol 1999, 17:3374–3388.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Peters W, Rosner G, Vredenburgh J, et al.: A prospective, randomized comparison of two doses of combination alkylating agents (AA) as consolidation after CAF in high-risk primary breast cancer involving ten or more axillary lymph nodes (LN): preliminary results of CALGB 9082/SWOG 9114/NCIC ma-13. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1999, 18:2.

    Google Scholar 

  41. The Scandinavian Breast Cancer Study Group 9401: Results from a randomized adjuvant breast cancer study with high dose chemotherapy with CTCb supported by autologous bone marrow stem cells versus dose escalated and tailored FEC therapy. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1999, 18:3.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Weiss RB, Rifkin RM, Stewart FM, et al.: High-dose chemotherapy for high-risk primary breast cancer: an on-site review of the Bezwoda study. Lancet 2000, 355:999–1003.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Bryce CJ, Shenker T, Gelmon K, et al.: Menstrual disruption in premenopausal breast cancer patients receiving CMF (IV) vs AC adjuvant chemotherapy. Br Cancer Tx Res 1998, 50:336.

    Google Scholar 

  44. The International Breast Breast Cancer Group: Late effects of adjuvant oophorectomy and chemotherapy upon premenopausal breast cancer patients. Ann Oncol 1990, 1:30.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Rivkin S, Green S, Metch B, et al.: Adjuvant combination chemotherapy (CMFP) vs. oophorectomy followed by CMFP (OCMFP) for premenopausal women with ER+ operable breast cancer with positive axillary lymph nodes: an intergroup study. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1991, 10:47.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Davidson N, O’Neill A, Vukov A, et al.: Effect of chemohormonal therapy in premenopausal, node +, receptor + breast cancer: an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Phase III Intergroup Trial (E5188, INT-0101). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1999, 18:249.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Fisher B, Dignam J, Wolmark N, et al.: Tamoxifen and chemotherapy for lymph node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1997, 89:1673–1682.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Hutchins I, Green S, Ravdin P, et al.: CMF versus CAF with and without tamoxifen in high-risk nodenegative breast cancer patients and a natural history follow-up study in low-risk node-negative patients: update of tamoxifen results. Br Cancer Res Tx 1999, 57:1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Fisher B, Redmond C, Legault-Poisson S, et al.: Postoperative chemotherapy and tamoxifen compared with tamoxifen alone in the treatment of nodepositive breast cancer patients aged 50 years and older with tumors responsive to tamoxifen: results from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-16. J Clin Oncol 1990, 8:1005.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Albain K, Green S, Osborne K, et al.: Tamoxifen vs. cyclophosphamide, adriamycin, and 5-FU plus either concurrent or sequential tamoxifen in post-menopausal receptor+ node+ breast cancer: a Southwestern Oncology Group Phase III Intergroup Trial (SWOG-8814, Int-0100). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1997, 16:450.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Holmes FA, Newman RA, Madden V, et al.: Schedule dependent pharmacokinetics (PK) in a phase I trial of taxol (T) and doxorubicin (D) as initial chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (abstract). In Proceedings of the 8th NCI-EORTC Symposium on New Drugs in Cancer Therapy, Amsterdam, March 15–18, 1994: Dordrecht, Netherlands, Kluwer; 1994:197.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Hillner BE, Smith TJ: Efficacy and cost effectiveness of adjuvant chemotherapy in women with node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1991, 324:160.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Smith TJ, Hillner BE: The efficacy and cost effectiveness of adjuvant therapy of early breast cancer in premenopausal women. J Clin Oncol 1993, 11:771.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Desch CE, Hillner BE, Smith TJ, et al.: Should the elderly receive chemotherapy for node-negative breast cancer? A cost effectiveness analysis examining total and active life-expectancy outcomes. J Clin Oncol 1993, 11:777.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Siminoff LA, Fetting JH, Abeloff MD: Doctor-patient communication about breast cancer therapy. J Clin Oncol 1989, 7:1192.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Rajagopal S, Goodman PF, Tannock IF: Adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: discordance between physicians’perceptions of benefit and the results of clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 1994, 12:1296.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Fox Chase Cancer Center, 7701 Burholme Avenue, 19111, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Mary Cianfrocca DO & Lori J. Goldstein MD

Authors
  1. Mary Cianfrocca DO
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lori J. Goldstein MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cianfrocca, M., Goldstein, L.J. Operable breast cancer. Curr. Treat. Options in Oncol. 2, 157–167 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11864-001-0058-9

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11864-001-0058-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation