Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol 17, Issue 1
(January), 1999: 64
© 1999 American Society for Clinical Oncology
Dose-Response Trial of Megestrol Acetate in Advanced Breast Cancer: Cancer and Leukemia Group B Phase III Study 8741
Jeffrey Abrams,
Joseph Aisner,
Constance Cirrincione,
Donald A. Berry,
Hyman B. Muss,
M. Robert Cooper,
I. Craig Henderson,
Lawrence Panasci,
Jeffrey Kirshner,
John Ellerton,
Larry Norton
From the University of Maryland Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD; Cancer and Leukemia Group B Statistical Office, Durham, NC; Bowman Gray School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC; Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; McGill Cancer Center, Montreal, Canada; State University of New York at Syracuse, Syracuse, NY; University of California at San Diego, San Diego, CA; and the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
Address reprint requests to Jeffrey Abrams, MD, National Cancer Institute, 6130 Executive Blvd, EPN 741, Rockville, MD 208927436; Email AbramsJ{at}CTEP.nci.nih.gov
PURPOSE: To investigate whether dose escalation of megestrol acetate (MA) improves response rate and survival in comparison with standard doses of MA.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three hundred sixty-eight patients with metastatic breast cancer, positive and/or unknown estrogen and progesterone receptors, zero or one prior trial of hormonal therapy, and no prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease were prospectively randomized into three groups. The groups of patients received either MA 160 mg/d (one tablet per day), MA 800 mg/d (five tablets per day), or MA 1,600 mg/d (10 tablets per day).
RESULTS: Patient characteristics were well balanced in the three treatment groups. Three hundred sixty-six patients received treatment and were included in the analyses. The response rates were 23%, 27%, and 27% for the 160-mg, 800-mg, and 1,600-mg arms, respectively. Response duration correlated inversely with dose. Median durations of response were 17 months, 14 months, and 8 months for the 160-mg, 800-mg, and 1,600-mg arms, respectively. No significant differences in the treatment arms were noted for time to disease progression or for survival; survival medians were 28 months (low dose), 24 months (mid dose) and 29 months (high dose). The most frequent and troublesome toxicity, weight gain, was dose-related, with approximately 20% of patients on the two higher-dose arms reporting weight gain of more than 20% of their prestudy weight, compared with only 2% in the 160-mg dose arm.
CONCLUSION: With a median follow-up of 8 years, these results demonstrate no advantage for dose escalation of MA in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer.

CiteULike Complore Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Facebook Reddit Technorati Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:

|
 |

|
 |
 
E. D. Paskett, D. Schrag, A. Kornblith, E. B. Lamont, J. C. Weeks, J. R. Marshall, C. Shapiro, and J. Holland
Cancer and leukemia group B cancer control and health outcomes committee: origins and accomplishments.
Clin. Cancer Res.,
June 1, 2006;
12(11):
3601s - 3605s.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
S. M. Ali, L. M. Demers, K. Leitzel, H. A. Harvey, D. Clemens, N. Mallinak, L. Engle, V. Chinchilli, L. Costa, C. Brady, et al.
Baseline serum NTx levels are prognostic in metastatic breast cancer patients with bone-only metastasis
Ann. Onc.,
March 1, 2004;
15(3):
455 - 459.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
S. M. Ali, K. Leitzel, V. M. Chinchilli, L. Engle, L. Demers, H. A. Harvey, W. Carney, J. W. Allard, and A. Lipton
Relationship of Serum HER-2/neu and Serum CA 15-3 in Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer
Clin. Chem.,
August 1, 2002;
48(8):
1314 - 1320.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
D. F. Hayes, H. Yamauchi, G. Broadwater, C. T. Cirrincione, S. P. Rodrigue, D. A. Berry, J. Younger, L. L. Panasci, F. Millard, D. B. Duggan, et al.
Circulating HER-2/erbB-2/c-neu (HER-2) Extracellular Domain as a Prognostic Factor in Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer: Cancer and Leukemia Group B Study 8662
Clin. Cancer Res.,
September 1, 2001;
7(9):
2703 - 2711.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|
|