Open Access

Breast cancer follow-up strategies in randomized phase III adjuvant clinical trials: a systematic review

  • Isabella Sperduti1,
  • Patrizia Vici2,
  • Nicola Tinari3,
  • Teresa Gamucci4,
  • Michele De Tursi3,
  • Giada Cortese5,
  • Antonino Grassadonia3,
  • Stefano Iacobelli3 and
  • Clara Natoli3Email author
Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research201332:89

https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-9966-32-89

Received: 3 September 2013

Accepted: 7 November 2013

Published: 11 November 2013

Abstract

The effectiveness of different breast cancer follow-up procedures to decrease breast cancer mortality are still an object of debate, even if intensive follow-up by imaging modalities is not recommended by international guidelines since 1997. We conducted a systematic review of surveillance procedures utilized, in the last ten years, in phase III randomized trials (RCTs) of adjuvant treatments in early stage breast cancer with disease free survival as primary endpoint of the study, in order to verify if a similar variance exists in the scientific world. Follow-up modalities were reported in 66 RCTs, and among them, minimal and intensive approaches were equally represented, each being followed by 33 (50%) trials. The minimal surveillance regimen is preferred by international and North American RCTs (P = 0.001) and by trials involving more than one country (P = 0.004), with no relationship with the number of participating centers (P = 0.173), with pharmaceutical industry sponsorship (P = 0.80) and with trials enrolling > 1000 patients (P = 0.14). At multivariate regression analysis, only geographic location of the trial was predictive for a distinct follow-up methodology (P = 0.008): Western European (P = 0.004) and East Asian studies (P = 0.010) use intensive follow-up procedures with a significantly higher frequency than international RCTs, while no differences have been detected between North American and international RCTs. Stratifying the studies according to the date of beginning of patients enrollment, before or after 1998, in more recent RCTs the minimal approach is more frequently followed by international and North American RCTs (P = 0.01), by trials involving more than one country (P = 0.01) and with more than 50 participating centers (P = 0.02). It would be highly desirable that in the near future breast cancer follow-up procedures will be homogeneous in RCTs and everyday clinical settings.

Keywords

Breast cancerFollow-upPhase III clinical trialSystematic review

Introduction

In the last years, a substantial increase in the number of women surviving breast cancer [1], the most frequent female cancer in the world [25], has been reported. This leads to the necessity to focus on breast cancer follow-up procedures for the high relevance they have for both patients and professional personnel [6]. The primary aim of routine post-operative surveillance after early stage breast cancer surgery, referred to as 'follow-up’, is to enhance survival, psychosocial and physical well-being of patients. The effectiveness of different breast cancer follow-up procedures for early detection of metastatic disease is an old issue, starting in the 1980s [710]. In the 1990s, evidences from phase III randomized trials (RCTs) demonstrated that intensive follow-up procedures do not improve outcome or quality of life when compared to patients’ educations about symptoms referral and regular physical examinations [1118]. Nowadays, there is a general agreement on the utility of yearly mammography for detecting local recurrences and/or second primary cancers while intensive follow-up practices by imaging techniques (i.e. chest radiograph, bone scan and liver sonography) are not recommended by current international guidelines [19, 20]. Nevertheless, the appropriateness of screening tests to be used as well as the frequency of follow-up procedures and the optimal follow-up duration are still object of debate [2124], which reflects in the wide use of intensive surveillance and in the long-term follow-up period in everyday clinical practice [6, 2528].

Based on these premises, we conducted a systematic review of the surveillance procedures utilized in phase III RCTs of adjuvant treatments in early stage breast cancer in order to asses if a similar variance exists in the scientific world.

Methods

Literature search and eligibility criteria

We searched PubMed (PubMed, available at URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed) from January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2012 for phase III RCTs of early breast cancer medical adjuvant therapies with disease free survival (DFS) as primary endpoint of the study [29]. We selected only full text publications (not abstracts), written in English-language. Trials on neoadjuvant therapies, neoadjuvant followed by adjuvant therapies, adjuvant bisphosphonates alone, non medical treatments, radiation therapies, adjuvant chemotherapy for loco-regional relapses and non-phase III trials were excluded. When multiple publications of the same RCT were identified, the first publication was selected. We used as keywords: breast cancer adjuvant therapy, clinical trial, phase III, phase 3 and randomized.

Data extraction

Information extracted from each trial included: date of beginning of patients enrollment, geographic location, number of participating countries, sponsorship by pharmaceutical companies, number of participating centers, number of enrolled patients, follow-up description (modalities, frequency and duration). Follow-up was classified as minimal when only history/physical examination and/or automated blood chemistry studies, and intensive when chest radiographs ± bone scan ± liver sonography ± tumor markers were included. Screening and data extraction were performed independently by two investigators.

Statistics

Descriptive statistics were used to report relevant study information. The associations between variables and follow-up data were tested by the Pearson’s chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test, as appropriate. All p values are reported as 2-sided and p values less than 0.05 denotes statistically significant association. A multiple correspondence analysis (MCA), an exploratory multivariate statistical technique, was used to analyze possible relationships among all variables and identify specific profiles [30]. In the MCA, associations between variables are displayed graphically as maps, and their position in the graphic is exclusively informative. The prediction of follow-up procedures was evaluated using a stepwise multivariate logistic regression. The cut-off p value for inclusion or exclusion in the model was set at 0.10 and 0.15, respectively. The Odds Ratio (OR) and the 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were estimated for each variable. The SPSS software (SPSS version 19.0, SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois, USA) was used for all statistical evaluations.

Results

Of 441 potentially relevant abstracts identified, 98 papers met full inclusion criteria: follow-up modalities were reported in 66 RCTs [3195] while no information was given in the remaining 32 [96127]. Two different trials, the ABCSG trial 8 and ARNO 95 trial, are reported in the same paper by Jakesz et al. [58]. The flowchart of search strategy is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1

Flowchart of study selection.

As shown in Table 1, there is a trend towards more frequently describing surveillance procedures in papers from international, West European or East Asian (Japan, Vietnam and China) RCTs than in those from North American (USA and Canada) RCTs (P = 0.06); no relationship has been found between other variables taken into account and the availability of follow-up data.
Table 1

Description of follow-up procedures in RCTs

 

Follow-up data

P value

Yes

NO

 

No. (%)

No. (%)

 

Geographic location

  

International

13 (68)

6 (32)

0.06

North America (USA and Canada)

10 (48)

11 (52)

 

Western Europe

38 (79)

10 (21)

 

East Asia (Japan, Vietnam, China)

5 (56)

4 (44)

 

Number of participating countries

  

1 country+

43 (66)

22 (34)

0.49

> 1 country

23 (74)

8 (26)

 

Number of participating centers

  

≤ 50

29 (81)

7 (19)

0.75

> 50

17 (77)

5 (23)

 

Industry sponsorship

  

Yes

37 (75)

12 (25)

0.64

No

29 (69)

13 (31)

 

Number of enrolled patients

  

≤ 1000 patients

34 (76)

11 (24)

0.14

> 1000 patients

32 (62)

20 (38)

 

Legends: RCTs = randomized clinical trials.

Among the 66 papers describing follow-up methodology, minimal and intensive approaches were equally represented, each being followed by 33 (50%) trials. Only 6 papers report the use of tumor markers measurement (carcinoembryonic antigen and carbohydrate antigen 15–3) during follow-up [46, 48, 57, 75, 82, 88] and none includes the use of computed tomography scans, positron emission tomography scanning and magnetic resonance imaging.

Table 2 shows that the minimal surveillance regimen is preferred by international and North American RCTs (P = 0.001) and by trials involving more than one country (P = 0.004), while there is no relationship with the number of participating centers (P = 0.173), the pharmaceutical industry sponsorship (P = 0.80), trials enrolling > 1000 patients (P = 0.14). Breast cancer follow-up guidelines, recommending the minimal approach, were published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology in 1997 [128]. Interestingly, no differences in follow-up modalities have been detected in RCTs enrolling patients before and after 1998 (P = 0.58). Stratifying data according to the date of beginning of patients enrollment (i.e. before or after 1998), even if numbers are small, in more recent studies there is a higher use of the minimal approach by international and North American RCTs (P = 0.01) and by trials involving more than one country (P = 0.01), and more than 50 participating centers (P = 0.02), with a trend toward statistical significance for trials enrolling > 1000 patients (P = 0.06) (Table 3).
Table 2

Follow-up methodologies in RCTs

 

Follow-up Approach

P value

Minimal

Intensive

 

No. (%)

No. (%)

 

Geographic location

  

International

12 (92)

1(8)

0.001

North America (USA and Canada)

7 (70)

3 (30)

 

Western Europe

13 (34)

25 (66)

 

East Asia (Japan, Vietnam, China)

1 (20)

4 (80)

 

Number of participating countries

  

1 country

16 (37)

27 (63)

0.004

> 1 country

17 (74)

6 (26)

 

Number of participating centers

  

≤ 50

11 (38)

18 (62)

0.173

> 50

10 (59)

7 (42)

 

Industry sponsorship

  

Yes

18 (49)

19 (51)

0.80

No

15 (52)

14 (48)

 

Number of enrolled patients

  

≤ 1000 patients

14 (41)

20 (58)

0.14

> 1000 patients

19 (59)

13 (41)

 

Date of beginning of patients enrollment

  

From 1981 to 1997

23 (48)

25 (52)

0.58

From 1998 to 2002

10 (56)

8 (44)

 

Legends: RCTs = randomized clinical trials.

Table 3

Follow-up methodologies in RCTs according to the date of beginning of patients enrollment

 

Date of beginning of patients enrollment

Before 1998

After 1998

Follow-up approach

Follow-up approach

Minimal

Intensive

 

Minimal

Intensive

 

No. (%)

No. (%)

P value

No. (%)

No. (%)

P value

Geographic location

    

International

7 (87)

1 (13)

 

5 (100)

-

0.01

North America (USA and Canada)

3 (60)

2 (40)

 

4 (80)

1 (20)

 

Western Europe

12 (37)

20 (63)

 

1 (16)

5 (83)

 

East Asia (Japan, Vietnam, China)

1 (33)

2 (67)

0.07

-

2 (100)

 

Number of participating countries

    

1 country

13 (39)

20 (60)

 

3 (30)

7 (70)

0.01

> 1 country

10 (66)

5 (33)

0.08

7 (87)

1 (87)

 

Number of participating centers

    

≤ 50

11 (46)

13 (54)

 

-

5 (100.0)

0.02

> 50

6 (54)

5 (46)

0.63

4 (67)

2 (33)

 

Industry sponsorship

    

Yes

9 (41)

13 (59)

 

9 (60)

6 (40)

0.40

No

14 (54)

12 (46)

0.37

1 (33)

2 (67)

 

Number of enrolled patients

    

≤ 1000 patients

13 (45)

16 (55)

 

1 (20.0)

4 (80.0)

0.06

> 1000 patients

10 (53)

9 (47)

0.60

9 (69)

4 (31)

 
The graphical map of MCA (Figure 2) shows that intensive follow-up procedures cluster with Western European and East Asian studies, studies with less than 50 participating centers and less than 1000 enrolled patients, and with patients enrollment beginning before 1998, while the minimal approach clusters with RCTs enrolling more than 1000 patients and beginning enrollment after 1998 (Figure 2). At multivariate regression analysis, only geographic location of the trial was predictive for a distinct follow-up methodology (P = 0.008). In particular, setting as a reference the international studies, Western European (P = 0.004) and East Asian studies (P = 0.010) use intensive follow-up procedures with a significantly higher frequency than international RCTs, while no differences are detected between North American and international RCTs.
Figure 2

Multiple correspondence analysis of possible relationships among all variables.

For each follow-up approach, the frequency at which the different exams are performed is highly variable, ranging from 1 to 4 times/year for history and/or physical examinations, and from 1 to 3 times/year for imaging modalities, as shown in Table 4. Almost all RCTs showed the highest number of evaluations/year in the first 1–2 years of follow-up; 5-year follow-up and annually thereafter was chosen by almost all studies, with the following exceptions: two studies interrupted all imaging modalities at the 3rd year [83, 84]; one study discontinued chest radiographs and bone scan at the 4th year [46] and one study ended chest radiographs at the 3rd year [66].
Table 4

Frequency of different exams from year 1 to 5 of follow-up

Variable

 

1° year

2° year

3° year

4° year

5° year

  

Min_ Follow-up

Int_ Follow-up

Min_ Follow-up

Int_ Follow-up

Min_ Follow-up

Int_ Follow-up

Min_ Follow-up

Int_ Follow-up

Min_ Follow-up

Int_ Follow-up

times/year

times/year

times/year

times/year

times/year

times/year

times/year

times/year

times/year

times/year

History/physical examination 46 RCTs

Median

4.0

4.0

2.0

4.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

Lower-Higher limit

1.0-4.0

1.0-4.0

2.0-4.o

1.0-4.0

1.0-2.0

1.0-4.0

2.0

1.0-4.0

1.0-2.0

1.0-4.0

Physical examination 18 RCTs

Median

3.0

3.5

2.5

3.0

2.0

2.5

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

Lower-Higher limit

1.0-4.0

3.0-4.0

1.0-4.0

2.0-4.0

2.0-4.0

3.0-4.0

1.0-4.0

1.0-3.0

1.0-4.0

1.0-3.0

Chest radiograph 33 RCTs

Median

 

1.0

 

1.0

 

1.0

 

1.0

 

1.0

Lower-Higher limit

 

1.0-3.0

 

1.0-3.0

 

1.0-3.0

 

1.0-2.0

 

1.0-2.0

Bone scan 19 RCTs

Median

 

1.0

 

1.0

 

1.0

 

1.0

 

1.0

Lower-Higher limit

 

1.0-3.0

 

1.0-3.0

 

1.0-3.0

 

1.0-3.0

 

1.0-2.0

Liver sonography 24 RCTs

Median

 

1.0

 

1.0

 

1.0

 

1.0

 

1.0

Lower-Higher limit

 

1.0-3.0

 

1.0-3.0

 

1.0-3.0

 

1.0-2.0

 

1.0-2.0

Legends: Min_ = minimal; Int_ = intensive.

Discussion

The results of our systematic review demonstrates that among phase III RCTs of adjuvant therapies for early stage breast cancer, minimal and intensive follow-up approaches are equally used. However, it should be noted that not all the papers, mainly from North America, report the modalities of follow-up [91121], even if we selected RCTs with primary endpoint represented by DFS, which can be affected by the surveillance methodologies applied. Possible explanations could be that i) the authors and referees do not think this is a relevant issue or ii) a follow-up according to established guidelines was applied, thus making it unnecessary to specify. The second hypothesis may be more likely, since the minimalist follow-up suggested by international guidelines is more frequently followed by North American while intensive follow-up is preferred by Western European and East Asian trialists.

Our analysis also suggests that the use of the different strategies of follow-up is not dictated by the necessity of costs containment as it has been suggested [129131], since no relationship with industrial sponsorships, number of participating centers and number of enrolled patients has been found. It seems more likely that the intensive surveillance methodology in RCTs follows Western European and East Asian cultural attitudes of scientists and medical oncologists towards the care of breast cancer patients [132]. In this respect, it has recently been reported that many European and East Asian breast cancer patients receive more intensive follow-up care than recommended by the current guideline [6, 25, 26, 133, 134] even if, at a lesser extent, this has been also reported for American and Canadian patients [27, 28].

The frequency of follow-up is higher in the first 2–3 years after surgery and tends to decrease thereafter. Almost all RCTs, except few studies [46, 83, 84], continue programmed controls at least 5 years after treatment, independently from the chosen follow-up methodology. These issues are still object of debate [135], since neither the optimum frequency nor duration of follow-up has been clearly defined [23, 136, 137].

Results from two Italian phase III RCTs, both published in 1994 [11, 12] and several retrospective studies [138141] demonstrated that intensive follow-up strategies including chest radiography, bone scan, liver ultrasound and tumor markers measurements do not improve survival as compared to history taking, physical examinations and annual mammography. On the basis of these data, the American Society of Clinical Oncology published in 1997 and periodically updated thereafter [19, 128, 142] breast cancer follow-up guidelines recommending a minimal approach. We found no increase in the use of minimalist follow-up among RCTs beginning to enroll patients one year after published guidelines (i.e. 1998). However, more recently the minimal approach is being preferred by most international and North American RCTs, and bigger trials, such as those involving more than one country and more than 50 participating centers. It is relevant to point up that the use of the intensive follow-up is still present in almost 45% of new generation RCTs.

A possible limit of our study may be represented by the choice of studies written in English, although the vast majority of RCTs are currently published in this language and in scientific journal indexed in PubMed. In addition, it should be underlined that it is likely the statistic analysis could be not completely reliable, considering that in some of the subcategories considered in the study, the number of eligible RCTs is low.

Conclusions

Current breast cancer follow-up guidelines, which are based on RCTs, suggest a minimal follow-up approach for surveillance of early breast cancer patients, but this suggestion is not widely applied neither in phase III RCTs of adjuvant treatments nor in real world clinical practice. Whether the minimal follow-up approach will still be the recommended option in the future, is to be confirmed. In fact, more effective and sophisticated diagnostic procedures may be useful to point out severe long-term side effects of new molecularly targeted agents as well as an early detection of oligometastatic disease might be suitable for cure with newer therapeutic strategies, as it has been suggested for other neoplasms [143]. Finally, it would be highly desirable that in the near future the follow-up procedures will be homogeneous in RCTs and everyday clinical settings.

Abbreviations

DFS: 

Disease free survival

MCA: 

Multiple correspondence analysis

OR: 

Odds ratio

RCTs: 

Randomized clinical trials.

Declarations

Acknowledgments

Supported by the Consorzio Interuniversitario Nazionale per Bio-Oncologia (CINBO). The authors are grateful to Mrs. Camille St. Pierre for careful reviewing of the manuscript.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Unit of Biostatistics, Regina Elena National Cancer Institute
(2)
Division of Medical Oncology B, Regina Elena National Cancer Institute
(3)
Medical Oncology Unit, Department of Experimental and Clinical Sciences, University “G. d’Annunzio”
(4)
Department of Oncology, “S.S. Trinita`” Hospital
(5)
Department of Oncology, “S.S. Annunziata” Hospital

References

  1. De Angelis R, Tavilla A, Verdecchia A, Scoppa S, Hachey M, Feuer EJ, Mariotto AB: Breast cancer survivors in the United States: geographic variability and time trends, 2005–2015. Cancer. 2009, 115 (9): 1954-1966.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A: Cancer statistics, 2013. CA Cancer J Clin. 2013, 63 (1): 11-30.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Piscitelli P, Barba M, Crespi M, Di Maio M, Santoriello A, D’Aiuto M, Fucito A, Losco A, Pentimalli F, Maranta P, et al: The burden of breast cancer in Italy: mastectomies and quadrantectomies performed between 2001 and 2008 based on nationwide hospital discharge records. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2012, 31: 96-104.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Vrdoljak E, Wojtukiewicz MZ, Pienkowski T, Bodoky G, Berzinec P, Finek J, Todorovic V, Borojevic N, Croitoru A: Cancer epidemiology in Central, South and Eastern European countries. Croat Med J. 2011, 52 (4): 478-487.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare: Cancer in Australia: Actual incidence data from 1991 to 2009 and mortality data from 1991 to 2010 with projections to 2012. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol. 2013, 9 (3): 199-213.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. van Hezewijk M, Hille ET, Scholten AN, Marijnen CA, Stiggelbout AM, van de Velde CJ: Professionals’ opinion on follow-up in breast cancer patients; perceived purpose and influence of patients’ risk factors. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2011, 37 (3): 217-224.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Arnstein NB, Harbert JC, Byrne PJ: Efficacy of bone and liver scanning in breast cancer patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy. Cancer. 1984, 54 (10): 2243-2247.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Evans DM, Wright DJ: The role of bone and liver scans in surveying patients with breast cancer for metastatic disease. Am Surg. 1987, 53 (10): 603-605.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Feig SA: Imaging techniques and guidelines for evaluation and follow-up of breast cancer patients. Crit Rev Diagn Imaging. 1987, 27 (1): 1-16.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Kunkler IH, Merrick MV, Rodger A: Bone scintigraphy in breast cancer: a nine-year follow-up. Clin Radiol. 1985, 36 (3): 279-282.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. The GIVIO Investigators: Impact of follow-up testing on survival and health-related quality of life in breast cancer patients. A multicenter randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 1994, 271 (20): 1587-1592.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Rosselli Del Turco M, Palli D, Cariddi A, Ciatto S, Pacini P, Distante V: Intensive diagnostic follow-up after treatment of primary breast cancer. A randomized trial. National Research Council Project on Breast Cancer follow-up. JAMA. 1994, 271 (20): 1593-1597.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Rojas MP, Telaro E, Russo A, Fossati R, Confalonieri C, Liberati A: Follow-up strategies for women treated for early breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000, 4: CD001768Google Scholar
  14. Rojas MP, Telaro E, Russo A, Moschetti I, Coe L, Fossati R, Palli D, del Roselli TM, Liberati A: Follow-up strategies for women treated for early breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005, 1: CD001768Google Scholar
  15. Grunfeld E, Fitzpatrick R, Mant D, Yudkin P, Adewuyi-Dalton R, Stewart J, Cole D, Vessey M: Comparison of breast cancer patient satisfaction with follow-up in primary care versus specialist care: results from a randomized controlled trial. Br J Gen Pract. 1999, 49 (446): 705-710.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Grunfeld E, Mant D, Yudkin P, Adewuyi-Dalton R, Cole D, Stewart J, Fitzpatrick R, Vessey M: Routine follow up of breast cancer in primary care: randomised trial. BMJ. 1996, 313 (7058): 665-669.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Gulliford T, Opomu M, Wilson E, Hanham I, Epstein R: Popularity of less frequent follow up for breast cancer in randomised study: initial findings from the hotline study. BMJ. 1997, 314 (7075): 174-177.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Palli D, Russo A, Saieva C, Ciatto S, Rosselli Del Turco M, Distante V, Pacini P: Intensive vs clinical follow-up after treatment of primary breast cancer: 10-year update of a randomized trial. National Research Council Project on Breast Cancer Follow-up. JAMA. 1999, 281 (17): 1586-PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Khatcheressian JL, Hurley P, Bantug E, Esserman LJ, Grunfeld E, Halberg F, Hantel A, Henry NL, Muss HB, Smith TJ, Vogel VG, Wolf AC, Somerfield MR, Davidson NE, American Society of Clinical Oncology: Breast cancer follow-up and management after primary treatment: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2013, 31 (7): 961-965.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Grunfeld E, Dhesy-Thind S, Levine M: Clinical practice guidelines for the care and treatment of breast cancer: follow-up after treatment for breast cancer (summary of the 2005 update). CMAJ. 2005, 172 (10): 1319-1320.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Montgomery DA, Krupa K, Cooke TG: Follow-up in breast cancer: does routine clinical examination improve outcome? A systematic review of the literature. Br J Cancer. 2007, 97 (12): 1632-1641.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. de Bock GH, Bonnema J, van der Hage J, Kievit J, van de Velde CJ: Effectiveness of routine visits and routine tests in detecting isolated locoregional recurrences after treatment for early-stage invasive breast cancer: a meta-analysis and systematic review. J Clin Oncol. 2004, 22 (19): 4010-4018.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Collins RF, Bekker HL, Dodwell DJ: Follow-up care of patients treated for breast cancer: a structured review. Cancer Treat Rev. 2004, 30 (19): 19-35.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Molino A: What is the best follow-up methodology in early breast cancer?. Breast. 2008, 17 (1): 1-2.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Leoni M, Sadacharan R, Louis D, Falcini F, Rabinowitz C, Cisbani L, De Palma R, Yuen E, Grilli R: Variation among local health units in follow-up care of breast cancer patients in Emilia-Romagna, Italy. Tumori. 2013, 99 (1): 30-34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Grandjean I, Kwast AB, de Vries H, Klaase J, Schoevers WJ, Siesling S: Evaluation of the adherence to follow-up care guidelines for women with breast cancer. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2012, 16 (3): 281-285.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Margenthaler JA, Allam E, Chen L, Virgo KS, Kulkarni UM, Patel AP, Johnson FE: Surveillance of patients with breast cancer after curative-intent primary treatment: current practice patterns. J Oncol Pract. 2012, 8 (2): 79-83.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Grunfeld E, Hodgson DC, Del Giudice ME, Moineddin R: Population-based longitudinal study of follow-up care for breast cancer survivors. J Oncol Pract. 2010, 6 (4): 174-181.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Zhou WB, Zhang PL, Liu XA, Yang T, He W: Innegligible musculoskeletal disorders caused by zoledronic acid in adjuvant breast cancertreatment: a meta-analysis. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2011, 30 (1): 72-78.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Sagawa Y, Armand S, Lubbeke A, Hoffmeyer P, Fritschy D, Suva D, Turcot K: Associations between gait and clinical parameters in patients with severe knee osteoarthritis: A multiple correspondence analysis. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2013, 28 (3): 299-305.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Aihara T, Takatsuka Y, Ohsumi S, Aogi K, Hozumi Y, Imoto S, Mukai H, Iwata H, Watanabe T, Shimizu C, Nakagami K, Tamura M, Ito T, Masuda N, Ogino N, Hisamatsu K, Mitsuyama S, Abe H, Tanaka S, Yamaguchi T, Ohashi Y: Phase III randomized adjuvant study of tamoxifen alone versus sequential tamoxifen and anastrozole in Japanese postmenopausal women with hormone-responsive breast cancer: N-SAS BC03 study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010, 121 (2): 379-387.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Amadori D, Silvestrini R, Lena M, Boccardo F, Rocca A, Scarpi E, Schittulli F, Brandi M, Maltoni R, Serra P, Ponzone R, Biglia N, Gianni L, Tienghi A, Valerio MR, Bonginelli P, Amaducci L, Faedi M, Baldini E, Paradiso A: Randomized phase III trial of adjuvant epirubicin followed by cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and 5-fluorouracil (CMF) versus CMF followed by epirubicin in patients with node-negative or 1–3 node-positive rapidly proliferating breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011, 125 (3): 775-784.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Arriagada R, Spielmann M, Koscielny S, Le Chevalier T, Delozier T, Rémé-Saumon M, Ducourtieux M, Tursz T, Hill C: Results of two randomized trials evaluating adjuvant anthracycline-based chemotherapy in 1 146 patients with early breast cancer. Acta Oncol. 2005, 44 (5): 458-466.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Arriagada RLM, Spielmann M, Mauriac L, Bonneterre J, Namer M, Delozier T, Hill C, Tursz T: Randomized trial of adjuvant ovarian suppression in 926 premenopausal patients with early breast cancer treated with adjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Oncol. 2005, 16 (3): 389-396.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Bedognetti D, Sertoli MR, Pronzato P, Del Mastro L, Venturini M, Taveggia P, Zanardi E, Siffredi G, Pastorino S, Queirolo P, Gardin G, Wang E, Monzeglio C, Boccardo F, Bruzzi P: Concurrent vs Sequential Adjuvant Chemotherapy and Hormone Therapy in Breast Cancer: A Multicenter Randomized Phase III Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011, 103 (20): 1529-1539.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Boccardo FRA, Puntoni M, Guglielmini P, Amoroso D, Fini A, Paladini G, Mesiti M, Romeo D, Rinaldini M, Scali S, Porpiglia M, Benedetto C, Restuccia N, Buzzi F, Franchi R, Massidda B, Distante V, Amadori D, Sismondi P: Switching to Anastrozole Versus Continued Tamoxifen Treatment of Early Breast Cancer: Preliminary Results of the Italian Tamoxifen Anastrozole Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2005, 23 (22): 5138-5147.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Burnell M, Levine MN, Chapman JAW, Bramwell V, Gelmon K, Walley B, Vandenberg T, Chalchal H, Albain KS, Perez EA, Rugo H, Pritchard K, O’Brien P, Shepherd LE: Cyclophosphamide, Epirubicin, and Fluorouracil Versus Dose-Dense Epirubicin and Cyclophosphamide Followed by Paclitaxel Versus Doxorubicin and Cyclophosphamide Followed by Paclitaxel in Node-Positive or High-Risk Node-Negative Breast Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009, 28 (1): 77-82.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Coombes RC, Bliss JM, Espie M, Erdkamp F, Wals J, Tres A, Marty M, Coleman RE, Tubiana-Mathieu N, den Boer MO, Wardley A, Kilburn LS, Cooper D, Thomas MW, Reise JA, Wilkinson K, Hupperets P: Randomized, Phase III Trial of Sequential Epirubicin and Docetaxel Versus Epirubicin Alone in Postmenopausal Patients With Node-Positive Breast Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011, 29 (24): 3247-3254.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Coombes RC HE, Gibson LJ, Paridaens R, Jassem J, Delozier T, Jones SE, Alvarez I, Bertelli G, Ortmann O, Coates AS, Bajetta E, Dodwell D, Coleman RE, Fallowfield LJ, Mickiewicz E, Andersen J, Lonning PE, Cocconi G, Stewart A, Stuart N, Snowdon CF, Carpentieri M, Massimini G, Bliss JM, Van De Velde C, Intergroup Exemestane Study: A randomized trial of exemestane after two to three years of tamoxifen therapy in postmenopausal women with primary breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004, 350 (11): 1081-1092.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Davidson NEONA, Vukov AM, Osborne CK, Martino S, White DR, Abeloff MD: Chemoendocrine Therapy for Premenopausal Women With Axillary Lymph Node-Positive, Steroid Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer: Results From INT 0101 (E5188). J Clin Oncol. 2005, 23 (25): 5973-5982.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. De Placido S, De Laurentiis M, De Lena M, Lorusso V, Paradiso A, D’Aprile M, Pistillucci G, Farris A, Sarobba MG, Palazzo S, Manzione L, Adamo V, Palmeri S, Ferraù F, Lauria R, Pagliarulo C, Petrella G, Limite G, Costanzo R, Bianco AR, GOCSI Cooperative Group: A randomised factorial trial of sequential doxorubicin and CMF vs CMF and chemotherapy alone vs chemotherapy followed by goserelin plus tamoxifen as adjuvant treatment of node-positive breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2005, 14 (3): 467-474.Google Scholar
  42. Eiermann W, Graf E, Ataseven B, Conrad B, Hilfrich J, Massinger-Biebl H, Vescia S, Loibl S, von Minckwitz G, Schumacher M, Kaufmann M: Dose-intensified epirubicin versus standard-dose epirubicin/cyclophosphamide followed by CMF in breast cancer patients with 10 or more positive lymph nodes: Results of a randomised trial (GABG-IV E-93) – The German Adjuvant Breast Cancer Group. Eur J Cancer. 2010, 46 (1): 84-94.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Eiermann W, Pienkowski T, Crown J, Sadeghi S, Martin M, Chan A, Saleh M, Sehdev S, Provencher L, Semiglazov V, Press M, Sauter G, Lindsay MA, Riva A, Buyse M, Drevot P, Taupin H, Mackey JR: Phase III Study of Doxorubicin/Cyclophosphamide With Concomitant Versus Sequential Docetaxel As Adjuvant Treatment in Patients With Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Normal, Node-Positive Breast Cancer: BCIRG-005 Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2011, 29 (29): 3877-3884.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Ejlertsen B, Mouridsen HT, Jensen MB, Bengtsson NO, Bergh J, Cold S, Edlund P, Ewertz M, de Graaf PW, Kamby C, Nielsen DL: Similar Efficacy for Ovarian Ablation Compared With Cyclophosphamide, Methotrexate, and Fluorouracil: From a Randomized Comparison of Premenopausal Patients With Node-Positive, Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006, 24 (31): 4956-4962.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  45. Focan C, Beauduin M, Majois F, Canon JL, Cusumano G, Focan-Henrard D, Lobelle JP: High-dose oral medroxyprogesterone acetate or tamoxifen as adjuvant hormone therapy for node-negative early-stage breast cancer: randomized trial with 7-year update. Clin Breast Cancer. 2004, 5 (2): 136-141.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. Fountzilas GSG, Kouvatseas G, Polychronis A, Klouvas G, Samantas E, Zamboglou N, Kyriakou K, Adamou A, Pectasidis D, Ekonomopoulos T, Kalofonos HP, Bafaloukos D, Georgoulias V, Razis E, Koukouras D, Zombolas V, Kosmidis P, Skarlos D, Pavlidis N, Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group: Adjuvant cytotoxic and endocrine therapy in pre- and postmenopausal patients with breast cancer and one to nine infiltrated nodes: five-year results of the Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group randomized HE 10/92 study. Am J Clin Oncol. 2004, 27 (1): 57-67.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Fumoleau P, Kerbrat P, Romestaing P, Fargeot P, Brémond A, Namer M, Schraub S, Goudier MJ, Mihura J, Monnier A, Clavère P, Serin D, Seffert P, Pourny C, Facchini T, Jacquin JP, Sztermer JF, Datchary J, Ramos R, Luporsi E: Randomized Trial Comparing Six Versus Three Cycles of Epirubicin-Based Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Premenopausal, Node-Positive Breast Cancer Patients: 10-Year Follow-Up Results of the French Adjuvant Study Group 01 Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2003, 21 (2): 298-305.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. Gogas H, Dafni U, Karina M, Papadimitriou C, Batistatou A, Bobos M, Kalofonos HP, Eleftheraki AG, Timotheadou E, Bafaloukos D, Christodoulou C, Markopoulos C, Briasoulis E, Papakostas P, Samantas E, Kosmidis P, Stathopoulos GP, Karanikiotis C, Pectasides D, Dimopoulos MA, Fountzilas G: Postoperative dose-dense sequential versus concomitant administration of epirubicin and paclitaxel in patients with node-positive breast cancer: 5-year results of the Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group HE 10/00 phase III Trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012, 132 (2): 609-619.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  49. Goldstein LJ, O’Neill A, Sparano JA, Perez EA, Shulman LN, Martino S, Davidson NE: Concurrent Doxorubicin Plus Docetaxel Is Not More Effective Than Concurrent Doxorubicin Plus Cyclophosphamide in Operable Breast Cancer With 0 to 3 Positive Axillary Nodes: North American Breast Cancer Intergroup Trial E 2197. J Clin Oncol. 2008, 26 (25): 4092-4099.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  50. Henderson IC, Berry DA, Demetri GD, Cirrincione CT, Goldstein LJ, Martino S, Ingle JN, Cooper MR, Hayes DF, Tkaczuk KH, Fleming G, Holland JF, Duggan DB, Carpenter JT, Frei E, Schilsky RL, Wood WC, Muss HB, Norton L: Improved outcomes from adding sequential Paclitaxel but not from escalating Doxorubicin dose in an adjuvant chemotherapy regimen for patients with node-positive primary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2003, 21 (6): 976-983.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  51. Ingle JN, Suman VJ, Mailliard JA, Kugler JW, Krook JE, Michalak JC, Pisansky TM, Wold LE, Donohue JH, Goetz MP, Perez EA: Randomized trial of tamoxifen alone or combined with fluoxymesterone as adjuvant therapy in postmenopausal women with resected estrogen receptor positive breast cancer. North Central Cancer Treatment Group Trial 89-30-52. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2006, 98 (2): 217-222.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  52. International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG): Endocrine responsiveness and tailoring adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal lymph node-negative breast cancer: a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002, 94 (14): 1054-1065.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  53. Castiglione Gertsch M, O’Neill A, Price KN, Goldhirsch A, Coates AS, Colleoni M, Nasi ML, Bonetti M, Gelber RD, International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG): Adjuvant Chemotherapy Followed by Goserelin Versus Either Modality Alone for Premenopausal Lymph Node-Negative Breast Cancer: A Randomized Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003, 95 (24): 1833-1846.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  54. International Breast Cancer Study Group PO: Toremifene and tamoxifen are equally effective for early-stage breast cancer: first results of International Breast Cancer Study Group Trials 12–93 and 14–93. Ann Oncol. 2004, 15 (12): 1749-1759.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  55. Gelber S, Goldhirsch A, Aebi S, Castiglione Gertsch M, Price KN, Coates AS, Gelber RD, International Breast Cancer Study Group CM: Tamoxifen After Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Premenopausal Women With Lymph Node-Positive Breast Cancer: International Breast Cancer Study Group Trial 13–93. J Clin Oncol. 2006, 24 (9): 1332-1341.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  56. Basser RL, O’Neill A, Martinelli G, Green MD, Peccatori F, Cinieri S, Coates AS, Gelber RD, Aebi S, Castiglione-Gertsch M, Viale G, Price KN, Goldhirsch A: Multicycle dose-intensive chemotherapy for women with high-risk primary breast cancer: results of International Breast Cancer Study Group Trial 15–95. J Clin Oncol. 2006, 24 (3): 370-378.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  57. Jakesz R, Hausmaninger H, Kubista E, Gnant M, Menzel C, Bauernhofer T, Seifert M, Haider K, Mlineritsch B, Steindorfer P, Kwasny W, Fridrik M, Steger G, Wette V, Samonigg H, Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group Trial 5: Randomized Adjuvant Trial of Tamoxifen and Goserelin Versus Cyclophosphamide, Methotrexate, and Fluorouracil: Evidence for the Superiority of Treatment With Endocrine Blockade in Premenopausal Patients With Hormone-Responsive Breast Cancer--Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group Trial 5. J Clin Oncol. 2002, 20 (24): 4621-4627.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  58. Jakesz R, Jonat W, Gnant M, Mittlboeck M, Greil R, Tausch C, Hilfrich J, Kwasny W, Menzel C, Samonigg H, Seifert M, Gademann G, Kaufmann M, Wolfgang J, ABCSG and the GABG: Switching of postmenopausal women with endocrine-responsive early breast cancer to anastrozole after 2 years’ adjuvant tamoxifen: combined results of ABCSG trial 8 and ARNO 95 trial. Lancet. 2005, 366 (9484): 455-462.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  59. Jones SE, Savin MA, Holmes FA, O’Shaughnessy JA, Blum JL, Vukelja S, McIntyre KJ, Pippen JE, Bordelon JH, Kirby R, Sandbach J, Hyman WJ, Khandelwal P, Negron AG, Richards DA, Anthony SP, Mennel RG, Boehm KA, Meyer WG, Asmar L: Phase III Trial Comparing Doxorubicin Plus Cyclophosphamide With Docetaxel Plus Cyclophosphamide As Adjuvant Therapy for Operable Breast Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006, 24 (34): 5381-5387.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  60. Kaufmann M, Graf E, Jonat W, Eiermann W, Vescia S, Geberth M, Conrad B, Gademann G, Albert U-S, Loibl S, von Minckwitz G, Schumacher M, German Adjuvant Breast Cancer Study Group (GABG): A randomised trial of goserelin versus control after adjuvant, risk-adapted chemotherapy in premenopausal patients with primary breast cancer – GABG-IV B-93. Eur J Cancer. 2007, 43 (16): 2351-2358.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  61. Kaufmann M, Jonat W, Hilfrich J, Eidtmann H, Gademann G, Zuna I, von Minckwitz G: Improved Overall Survival in Postmenopausal Women With Early Breast Cancer After Anastrozole Initiated After Treatment With Tamoxifen Compared With Continued Tamoxifen: The ARNO 95 Study. J Clin Oncol. 2007, 25 (19): 2664-2670.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  62. Kaufmann MGE, Jonat W, Eiermann W, Geberth M, Albert US, Gademann G, Conrad B, Stahl K, von Minckwitz G, Schumacher M, German Adjuvant Breast Cancer Group: Tamoxifen Versus Control After Adjuvant, Risk-Adapted Chemotherapy in Postmenopausal, Receptor-Negative Patients With Breast Cancer: A Randomized Trial (GABG-IV D-93)--The German Adjuvant Breast Cancer Grou. J Clin Oncol. 2005, 23 (31): 7842-7848.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  63. Kimura M, Tominaga T, Takatsuka Y, Toi M, Abe R, Koyama H, Takashima S, Nomura Y, Miura S, Kimijima I, Tashiro H, Ohashi Y, Adjuvant CEF Research Group for Breast Cancer: Randomized trial of cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and fluorouracil chemotherapy compared with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil with node-positive breast cancer in Japan. Breast Cancer. 2010, 17 (3): 190-198.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  64. Lewis JD, Chagpar AB, Shaughnessy EA, Nurko J, McMasters K, Edwards MJ: Excellent outcomes with adjuvant toremifene or tamoxifen in early stage breast cancer. Cancer. 2010, 116 (10): 2307-2315.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Loesch D, Greco FA, Senzer NN, Burris HA, Hainsworth JD, Jones S, Vukelja SJ, Sandbach J, Holmes F, Sedlacek S, Pippen J, Lindquist D, McIntyre K, Blum JL, Modiano MR, Boehm KA, Zhan F, Asmar L, Robert N: Phase III Multicenter Trial of Doxorubicin Plus Cyclophosphamide Followed by Paclitaxel Compared With Doxorubicin Plus Paclitaxel Followed by Weekly Paclitaxel As Adjuvant Therapy for Women With High-Risk Breast Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010, 28 (18): 2958-2965.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  66. Love RR, Duc NB, Allred DC, Binh NC, Dinh NV, Kha NN, Thuan TV, Mohsin SK, le Roanh D, Khang HX, Tran TL, Quy TT, Thuy NV, Thé PN, Cau TT, Tung ND, Huong DT, le Quang M, Hien NN, Thuong L, Shen TZ, Xin Y, Zhang Q, Havighurst TC, Yang YF, Hillner BE, DeMets DL: Oophorectomy and Tamoxifen Adjuvant Therapy in Premenopausal Vietnamese and Chinese Women With Operable Breast Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2002, 20 (10): 2559-2566.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  67. Mamounas EPBJ, Lembersky B, Fehrenbacher L, Sedlacek SM, Fisher B, Wickerham DL, Yothers G, Soran A, Wolmark N: Paclitaxel After Doxorubicin Plus Cyclophosphamide As Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Node-Positive Breast Cancer: Results From NSABP B-28. J Clin Oncol. 2005, 23 (16): 3686-3696.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  68. Martin M, Segui MA, Anton A, Ruiz A, Ramos M, Adrover E, Aranda I, Rodriguez Lescure A, Grosse R, Calvo L, Barnadas A, Isla D, Martinez Del Prado P, Ruiz Borrego M, Zaluski J, Arcusa A, Muñoz M, Lopez Vega JM, Mel JR, Munarriz B, Llorca C, Jara C, Alba E, Florian J, Li J, Lopez Garcia Asenjo JA, Saez A, Rios MJ, Almenar S, Peiro G, Lluch A, GEICAM 9805 Investigators: Adjuvant Docetaxel for High-Risk, Node-Negative Breast Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010, 363 (23): 2200-2210.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  69. Martin M, Rodriguez-Lescure A, Ruiz A, Alba E, Calvo L, Ruiz-Borrego M, Munarriz B, Rodriguez CA, Crespo C, de Alava E, López García-Asenjo JA, Guitián MD, Almenar S, González-Palacios JF, Vera F, Palacios J, Ramos M, Gracia Marco JM, Lluch A, Alvarez I, Seguí MA, Mayordomo JI, Antón A, Baena JM, Plazaola A, Modolell A, Pelegrí A, Mel JR, Aranda E, Adrover E, Alvarez JV, García Puche JL, Sánchez-Rovira P, Gonzalez S, López-Vega JM, GEICAM 9906 Study Investigators: Randomized Phase 3 Trial of Fluorouracil, Epirubicin, and Cyclophosphamide Alone or Followed by Paclitaxel for Early Breast Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008, 100 (11): 805-814.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  70. Martin MPT, Mackey J, Pawlicki M, Guastalla JP, Weaver C, Tomiak E, Al-Tweigeri T, Chap L, Juhos E, Guevin R, Howell A, Fornander T, Hainsworth J, Coleman R, Vinholes J, Modiano M, Pinter T, Tang SC, Colwell B, Prady C, Provencher L, Walde D, Rodriguez-Lescure A, Hugh J, Loret C, Rupin M, Blitz S, Jacobs P, Murawsky M, Riva A, Vogel C, Breast Cancer International Research Group 001 Investigators: Adjuvant Docetaxel for Node-Positive Breast Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005, 352 (22): 2302-2313.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  71. Nitz UA, Mohrmann S, Fischer J, Lindemann W, Berdel WE, Jackisch C, Werner C, Ziske C, Kirchner H, Metzner B: 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. 2005, 366 (9501): 1935-1944.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  72. Park Y, Okamura K, Mitsuyama S, Saito T, Koh J, Kyono S, Higaki K, Ogita M, Asaga T, Inaji H, Komichi H, Kohno N, Yamazaki K, Tanaka F, Ito T, Nishikawa H, Osaki A, Koyama H, Suzuki T: Uracil-tegafur and tamoxifen vs cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, fluorouracil, and tamoxifen in post-operative adjuvant therapy for stage I, II, or IIIA lymph node-positive breast cancer: a comparative study. Br J Cancer. 2009, 101 (4): 598-604.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  73. Paterson AH, Anderson SJ, Lembersky BC, Fehrenbacher L, Falkson CI, King KM, Weir LM, Brufsky AM, Dakhil S, Lad T, Baez-Diaz L, Gralow JR, Robidoux A, Perez EA, Zheng P, Geyer CE, Swain SM, Costantino JP, Mamounas EP, Wolmark N: Oral clodronate for adjuvant treatment of operable breast cancer (National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project protocol B-34): a multicentre, placebo-controlled, randomised trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012, 13 (7): 734-742.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  74. Piccart-Gebhart MJPM, Leyland-Jones B, Goldhirsch A, Untch M, Smith I, Gianni L, Baselga J, Bell R, Jackisch C, Cameron D, Dowsett M, Barrios CH, Steger G, Huang CS, Andersson M, Inbar M, Lichinitser M, Láng I, Nitz U, Iwata H, Thomssen C, Lohrisch C, Suter TM, Rüschoff J, Suto T, Greatorex V, Ward C, Straehle C, McFadden E, Dolci MS, Gelber RD, Herceptin Adjuvant (HERA) Trial Study Team: Trastuzumab after Adjuvant Chemotherapy in HER2-Positive Breast Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005, 335 (16): 1659-1672.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  75. Ploner F, Jakesz R, Hausmaninger H, Kolb R, Stierer M, Fridrik M, Steindorfer P, Gnant M, Haider K, Mlineritsch B, Tschurtschenthaler G, Steger G, Seifert M, Kubista E, Samonigg H, Austrian Breast And Colorectal Cancer Study Group: Randomised trial: One cycle of anthracycline-containing adjuvant chemotherapy compared with six cycles of CMF treatment in node-positive, hormone receptor-negative breast cancer patients. Onkologie. 2003, 26 (2): 115-119.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  76. Polyzos A, Malamos N, Boukovinas I, Adamou A, Ziras N, Kalbakis K, Kakolyris S, Syrigos K, Papakotoulas P, Kouroussis C, Karvounis N, Vamvakas L, Christophyllakis C, Athanasiadis A, Varthalitis I, Georgoulias V, Mavroudis D: FEC versus sequential docetaxel followed by epirubicin/cyclophosphamide as adjuvant chemotherapy in women with axillary node-positive early breast cancer: a randomized study of the Hellenic Oncology Research Group (HORG). Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010, 119 (1): 95-104.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  77. Pritchard KI, Shepherd LE, Chapman JA, Norris BD, Cantin J, Goss PE, Dent SF, Walde D, Vandenberg TA, Findlay B, O’Reilly SE, Wilson CF, Han L, Piura E, Whelan TJ, Pollak MN: Randomized trial of tamoxifen versus combined tamoxifen and octreotide LAR Therapy in the adjuvant treatment of early-stage breast cancer in postmenopausal women: NCIC CTG MA. 14. J Clin Oncol. 2011, 29 (29): 3869-3876.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  78. Roché H, Fumoleau P, Spielmann M, Canon JL, Delozier T, Serin D, Symann M, Kerbrat P, Soulié P, Eichler F, Viens P, Monnier A, Vindevoghel A, Campone M, Goudier MJ, Bonneterre J, Ferrero JM, Martin AL, Genève J, Asselain B: Sequential Adjuvant Epirubicin-Based and Docetaxel Chemotherapy for Node-Positive Breast Cancer Patients: The FNCLCC PACS 01 Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2006, 24 (36): 5664-5671.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  79. Rodenhuis S, Bontenbal M, Beex LV, Wagstaff J, Richel DJ, Nooij MA, Voest EE, Hupperets P, Van Tinteren H, Peterse HL, TenVergert EM, De Vries EG: Netherlands Working Party on Autologous Transplantation in Solid Tumors: High-Dose Chemotherapy with Hematopoietic Stem-Cell Rescue for High-Risk Breast Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003, 349 (1): 7-16.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  80. Rydén L, Jönsson P-E, Chebil G, Dufmats M, Fernö M, Jirström K, Källström A-C, Landberg G, Stål O, Thorstenson S, Nordenskjöld B: Two years of adjuvant tamoxifen in premenopausal patients with breast cancer: a randomised, controlled trial with long-term follow-up. Eur J Cancer. 2005, 41 (2): 256-264.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  81. Sacco MVM, Belfiglio M, Pellegrini F, De Berardis G, Franciosi M, Nicolucci A, Italian Interdisciplinary Group for Cancer Care Evaluation: Randomized Trial of 2 Versus 5 Years of Adjuvant Tamoxifen for Women Aged 50 Years or Older With Early Breast Cancer: Italian Interdisciplinary Group for Cancer Evaluation Study of Adjuvant Treatment in Breast Cancer 01. J Clin Oncol. 2003, 21 (12): 2276-2281.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  82. Schmid MJR, Samonigg H, Kubista E, Gnant M, Menzel C, Seifert M, Haider K, Taucher S, Mlineritsch B, Steindorfer P, Kwasny W, Stierer M, Tausch C, Fridrik M, Wette V, Steger G, Hausmaninger H: Randomized Trial of Tamoxifen Versus Tamoxifen Plus Aminoglutethimide as Adjuvant Treatment in Postmenopausal Breast Cancer Patients With Hormone Receptor-Positive Disease: Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group Trial 6. J Clin Oncol. 2003, 21 (6): 984-990.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  83. Schmid P, Untch M, Kosse V, Bondar G, Vassiljev L, Tarutinov V, Lehmann U, Maubach L, Meurer J, Wallwiener D, Possinger K: 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. 2007, 25 (18): 2509-2515.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  84. Schmid P, Untch M, Wallwiener D, Kosse V, Bondar G, Vassiljev L, Tarutinov V, Kienle E, Luftner D, Possinger K, TABLE-study (Takeda Adjuvant Breast cancer study with Leuprorelin Acetate): Cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and fluorouracil (CMF) versus hormonal ablation with leuprorelin acetate as adjuvant treatment of node-positive, premenopausal breast cancer patients: preliminary results of the TABLE-study (Takeda Adjuvant Breast cancer study with Leuprorelin Acetate). Anticancer Res. 2002, 22 (4): 2325-2332.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. Spielmann M, Roche H, Delozier T, Canon JL, Romieu G, Bourgeois H, Extra JM, Serin D, Kerbrat P, Machiels JP, Lortholary A, Orfeuvre H, Campone M, Hardy-Bessard AC, Coudert B, Maerevoet M, Piot G, Kramar A, Martin AL, Penault-Llorca F: Trastuzumab for Patients With Axillary-Node-Positive Breast Cancer: Results of the FNCLCC-PACS 04 Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2009, 27 (36): 6129-6134.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  86. Baum M, Budzar AU, Cuzick J, Forbes J, Houghton JH, Klijn JG, Sahmoud T, ATAC Trialists’ Group: Anastrozole alone or in combination with tamoxifen versus tamoxifen alone for adjuvant treatment of postmenopausal women with early breast cancer: first results of the ATAC randomised trial. Lancet. 2002, 359 (9324): 2131-2139.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  87. Thurlimann B, Keshaviah A, Coates AS, Mouridsen H, Mauriac L, Forbes JF, Paridaens R, Castiglione-Gertsch M, Gelber RD, Rabaglio M, Smith I, Wardley A, Price KN, Goldhirsch A: A comparison of letrozole and tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with early breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005, 353 (26): 2747-2757.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  88. Tokuda Y, Tajima T, Narabayashi M, Takeyama K, Watanabe T, Fukutomi T, Chou T, Sano M, Igarashi T, Sasaki Y, Ogura M, Miura S, Okamoto S, Ogita M, Kasai M, Kobayashi T, Fukuda H, Takashima S, Tobinai K, Autologous Bone Marrow Transplantation Study Group;Breast Cancer Study Group of the Japan Clinical Oncology Group (JCOG): 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. 2008, 99 (1): 145-51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. Venturini M, Del Mastro L, Aitini E, Baldini E, Caroti C, Contu A, Testore F, Brema F, Pronzato P, Cavazzini G, Sertoli MR, Canavese G, Rosso R, Bruzzi P: Dose-Dense Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Early Breast Cancer Patients: Results From a Randomized Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005, 97 (23): 1724-1733.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  90. Vici P, Brandi M, Giotta F, Foggi P, Schittulli F, Di Lauro L, Gebbia N, Massidda B, Filippelli G, Giannarelli D, Di Benedetto A, Mottolese M, Colucci G, Lopez M: A multicenter phase III prospective randomized trial of high-dose epirubicin in combination with cyclophosphamide (EC) versus docetaxel followed by EC in node-positive breast cancer. GOIM (Gruppo Oncologico Italia Meridionale) 9902 study. Ann Oncol. 2012, 23 (5): 1121-1129.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  91. von Minckwitz G, Graf E, Geberth M, Eiermann W, Jonat W, Conrad B, Brunnert K, Gerber B, Vescia S, Wollert J, Kaufmann M: CMF versus goserelin as adjuvant therapy for node-negative, hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer in premenopausal patients: A randomised trial (GABG trial IV-A-93). Eur J Cancer. 2006, 42 (12): 1780-1788.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  92. Winzer KJ, Sauer R, Sauerbrei W, Schneller E, Jaeger W, Braun M, Dunst J, Liersch T, Zedelius M, Brunnert K, Guski H, Schmoor C, Schumacher M, German Breast Cancer Study Group: Radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery. Eur J Cancer. 2004, 40 (7): 998-1005.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  93. Zander ARKN, Schmoor C, Krüger W, Möbus V, Frickhofen N, Metzner B, Schultze W, Berdel WE, Koenigsmann M, Thiel E, Wandt H, Possinger K, Trümper L, Kreienberg R, Carstensen M, Schmidt EH, Jänicke F, Schumacher M, Jonat W: High-Dose Chemotherapy With Autologous Hematopoietic Stem-Cell Support Compared With Standard-Dose Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer Patients With 10 or More Positive Lymph Nodes: First Results of a Randomized Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2004, 22 (12): 2273-2283.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  94. van de Velde CJ, Rea D, Seynaeve C, Putter H, Hasenburg A, Vannetzel JM, Paridaens R, Markopoulos C, Hozumi Y, Hille ET, Kieback DG, Asmar L, Smeets J, Nortier JW, Hadji P, Bartlett JM, Jones SE: Adjuvant tamoxifen and exemestane in early breast cancer (TEAM): a randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2011, 377 (9762): 321-331.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  95. Kerbrat P, Roché H, Bonneterre J, Veyret C, Lortholary A, Monnier A, Fumoleau P, Fargeot P, Namer M, Chollet P, Goudier MJ, Audhuy B, Simon H, Montcuquet P, Eymard JC, Walter S, Clavère P, Guastalla JP, French adjuvant Study Group: Epirubicin–vinorelbine vs FEC100 for node-positive, early breast cancer: French Adjuvant Study Group 09 trial. Br J Cancer. 2007, 96 (11): 1633-1638.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  96. Albain KS, Barlow WE, Ravdin PM, Farrar WB, Burton GV, Ketchel SJ, Cobau CD, Levine EG, Ingle JN, Pritchard KI, Lichter AS, Schneider DJ, Abeloff MD, Henderson IC, Muss HB, Green SJ, Lew D, Livingston RB, Martino S, Osborne CK, Breast Cancer Intergroup of North America: Adjuvant chemotherapy and timing of tamoxifen in postmenopausal patients with endocrine-responsive, node-positive breast cancer: a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2009, 374 (9707): 2055-2063.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  97. Citron ML, Berry DA, Cirrincione C, Hudis C, Winer EP, Gradishar WJ, Davidson NE, Martino S, Livingston R, Ingle JN, Perez EA, Carpenter J, Hurd D, Holland JF, Smith BL, Sartor CI, Leung EH, Abrams J, Schilsky RL, Muss HB, Norton L: Randomized trial of dose-dense versus conventionally scheduled and sequential versus concurrent combination chemotherapy as postoperative adjuvant treatment of node-positive primary breast cancer: first report of Intergroup Trial C9741/Cancer and Leukemia Group B Trial 9741. J Clin Oncol. 2003, 21 (8): 1431-1439.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  98. Coleman RE, Marshall H, Cameron D, Dodwell D, Burkinshaw R, Keane M, Gil M, Houston SJ, Grieve RJ, Barrett-Lee PJ, Ritchie D, Pugh J, Gaunt C, Rea U, Peterson J, Davies C, Hiley V, Gregory W, Bell R, AZURE Investigators: Breast-cancer adjuvant therapy with zoledronic acid. N Engl J Med. 2011, 365 (15): 1396-1405.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  99. Dubsky PC, Jakesz R, Mlineritsch B, Postlberger S, Samonigg H, Kwasny W, Tausch C, Stoger H, Haider K, Fitzal F, Singer CF, Stierer M, Sevelda P, Luschin-Ebengreuth G, Taucher S, Rudas M, Bartsch R, Steger GG, Greil R, Filipcic L, Gnant M: Tamoxifen and Anastrozole As a Sequencing Strategy: A Randomized Controlled Trial in Postmenopausal Patients With Endocrine-Responsive Early Breast Cancer From the Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group. J Clin Oncol. 2012, 30 (7): 722-728.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  100. Ellis P, Barrett-Lee P, Johnson L, Cameron D, Wardley A, O’Reilly S, Verrill M, Smith I, Yarnold J, Coleman R, Earl H, Canney P, Twelves C, Poole C, Bloomfield D, Hopwood P, Johnston S, Dowsett M, Bartlett JM, Ellis I, Peckitt C, Hall E, Bliss JM, TACT Trial Management Group: TACT Trialists: Sequential docetaxel as adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer (TACT): an open-label, phase III, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2009, 373 (9676): 1681-1692.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  101. Francis P, Crown J, Di Leo A, Buyse M, Balil A, Andersson M, Nordenskjold B, Lang I, Jakesz R, Vorobiof D, Gutiérrez J, van Hazel G, Dolci S, Jamin S, Bendahmane B, Gelber RD, Goldhirsch A, Castiglione-Gertsch M, Piccart-Gebhart M, BIG 02–98 Collaborative Group: Adjuvant Chemotherapy With Sequential or Concurrent Anthracycline and Docetaxel: Breast International Group 02 98 Randomized Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008, 100 (2): 121-133.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  102. Gnant M, Mlineritsch B, Schippinger W, Luschin-Ebengreuth G, Postlberger S, Menzel C, Jakesz R, Seifert M, Hubalek M, Bjelic-Radisic V, Samonigg H, Tausch C, Eidtmann H, Steger G, Kwasny W, Dubsky P, Fridrik M, Fitzal F, Stierer M, Rücklinger E, Greil R, ABCSG-12 Trial Investigators, Marth C: Endocrine therapy plus zoledronic acid in premenopausal breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2009, 360 (7): 679-691.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  103. Goss PE, Ingle JN, Martino S, Robert NJ, Muss HB, Piccart MJ, Castiglione M, Tu D, Shepherd LE, Pritchard KI, Livingston RB, Davidson NE, Norton L, Perez EA, Abrams JS, Therasse P, Palmer MJ, Pater JL: A Randomized Trial of Letrozole in Postmenopausal Women after Five Years of Tamoxifen Therapy for Early-Stage Breast Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003, 349 (19): 1793-1802.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  104. Hughes KSSL, Berry D, Cirrincione C, McCormick B, Shank B, Wheeler J, Champion LA, Smith TJ, Smith BL, Shapiro C, Muss HB, Winer E, Hudis C, Wood W, Sugarbaker D, Henderson IC, Norton L, Cancer and Leukemia Group B; Radiation Therapy Oncology Group; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Lumpectomy plus tamoxifen with or without irradiation in women 70 years of age or older with early breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004, 351 (10): 971-977.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  105. Hutchins LFGS, Ravdin PM, Lew D, Martino S, Abeloff M, Lyss AP, Allred C, Rivkin SE, Osborne CK: Randomized, Controlled Trial of Cyclophosphamide, Methotrexate, and Fluorouracil Versus Cyclophosphamide, Doxorubicin, and Fluorouracil With and Without Tamoxifen for High-Risk, Node-Negative Breast Cancer: Treatment Results of Intergroup Protocol INT-0102. J Clin Oncol. 2005, 23: 8313-8321.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  106. Joensuu H, Kellokumpu-Lehtinen PL, Huovinen R, Jukkola-Vuorinen A, Tanner M, Asola R, Kokko R, Ahlgren J, Auvinen P, Hemminki A, Paija O, Helle L, Nuortio L, Villman K, Nilsson G, Lahtela SL, Lehtiö K, Pajunen M, Poikonen P, Nyandoto P, Kataja V, Bono P, Leinonen M, Lindman H, FinXX Study Investigators: Adjuvant capecitabine in combination with docetaxel and cyclophosphamide plus epirubicin for breast cancer: an open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2009, 10 (12): 1145-1151.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  107. Joensuu H, Kellokumpu-Lehtinen PL, Bono P, Alanko T, Kataja V, Asola R, Utriainen T, Kokko R, Hemminki A, Tarkkanen M, Turpeenniemi-Hujanen T, Jyrkkiö S, Flander M, Helle L, Ingalsuo S, Johansson K, Jääskeläinen AS, Pajunen M, Rauhala M, Kaleva-Kerola J, Salminen T, Leinonen M, Elomaa I, Isola J, FinHer Study Investigators: Adjuvant docetaxel or vinorelbine with or without trastuzumab for breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2006, 354 (8): 809-820.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  108. Leonard RCF, Lind M, Twelves C, Coleman R, van Belle S, Wilson C, Ledermann J, Kennedy I, Barrett-Lee P, Perren T, Verrill M, Cameron D, Foster E, Yellowlees A, Crown J, Anglo-Celtic Cooperative Oncology Group: Conventional Adjuvant Chemotherapy Versus Single-Cycle, Autograft-Supported, High-Dose, Late-Intensification Chemotherapy in High-Risk Breast Cancer Patients: A Randomized Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004, 96 (14): 1076-1083.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  109. Moebus V, Jackisch C, Lueck HJ, du Bois A, Thomssen C, Kurbacher C, Kuhn W, Nitz U, Schneeweiss A, Huober J, Harbeck N, von Minckwitz G, Runnebaum IB, Hinke A, Kreienberg R, Konecny GE, Untch M: Intense Dose-Dense Sequential Chemotherapy With Epirubicin, Paclitaxel, and Cyclophosphamide Compared With Conventionally Scheduled Chemotherapy in High-Risk Primary Breast Cancer: Mature Results of an AGO Phase III Study. J Clin Oncol. 2010, 28 (17): 2874-2880.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  110. Moore HCF, Green SJ, Gralow JR, Bearman SI, Lew D, Barlow WE, Hudis C, Wolff AC, Ingle JN, Chew HK, Elias AD, Livingston RB, Martino S, Southwest Oncology Group/Intergroup Study 9623: Intensive Dose-Dense Compared With High-Dose Adjuvant Chemotherapy for High-Risk Operable Breast Cancer: Southwest Oncology Group/Intergroup Study 9623. J Clin Oncol. 2007, 25 (13): 1677-1682.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  111. Petit T, Borel C, Theobald S, Serin D, Rodier JF, Prevot G, Brettes JP, Klein T: Randomized multicentric study of perioperative chemotherapy with mitoxantrone in early breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2003, 10 (4): 369-375.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  112. Pico CMM, Jara C, Barnadas A, Pelegri A, Balil A, Camps C, Frau A, Rodriguez-Lescure A, Lopez-Vega JM, De La Haba J, Tres A, Alvarez I, Alba E, Arcusa A, Oltra A, Batista N, Checa T, Perez-Carrion R, Curto J, GEICAM Group: Epirubicin-cyclophosphamide adjuvant chemotherapy plus tamoxifen administered concurrently versus sequentially: randomized phase III trial in postmenopausal node-positive breast cancer patients. A GEICAM 9401 study. Ann Oncol. 2004, 15 (1): 79-87.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  113. Poole CJEH, Hiller L, Dunn JA, Bathers S, Grieve RJ, Spooner DA, Agrawal RK, Fernando IN, Brunt AM, O’Reilly SM, Crawford SM, Rea DW, Simmonds P, Mansi JL, Stanley A, Harvey P, McAdam K, Foster L, Leonard RC, Twelves CJ, NEAT Investigators and the SCTBG: Epirubicin and cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil as adjuvant therapy for early breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2006, 355 (18): 1851-1862.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  114. Rao RD, Cobleigh MA, Gray R, Graham ML, Norton L, Martino S, Budd GT, Ingle JN, Wood WC: Phase III double-blind, placebo-controlled, prospective randomized trial of adjuvant tamoxifen vs. tamoxifen and fenretinide in postmenopausal women with positive receptors (EB193): an intergroup trial coordinated by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Med Oncol. 2011, 1 (28): S39-47.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  115. Romond EH, Perez EA, Bryant J, Suman VJ, Geyer CE, Davidson NE, Tan-Chiu E, Martino S, Paik S, Kaufman PA, Swain SM, Pisansky TM, Fehrenbacher L, Kutteh LA, Vogel VG, Visscher DW, Yothers G, Jenkins RB, Brown AM, Dakhil SR, Mamounas EP, Lingle WL, Klein PM, Ingle JN, Wolmark N: Trastuzumab plus Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Operable HER2-Positive Breast Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005, 353 (16): 1673-1684.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  116. Sawaki M, Tokudome N, Mizuno T, Nakayama T, Taira N, Bando H, Murakami S, Yamamoto Y, Kashiwaba M, Iwata H, Uemura Y, Ohashi Y: Evaluation of trastuzumab without chemotherapy as a post-operative adjuvant therapy in HER2-positive elderly breast cancer patients: randomized controlled trial [RESPECT (N-SAS BC07)]. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2011, 41 (5): 709-712.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  117. Shulman LN, Cirrincione CT, Berry DA, Becker HP, Perez EA, O’Regan R, Martino S, Atkins JN, Mayer E, Schneider CJ, Kimmick G, Norton L, Muss H, Winer EP, Hudis C: Six cycles of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide or Paclitaxel are not superior to four cycles as adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer in women with zero to three positive axillary nodes: Cancer and Leukemia Group B 40101. J Clin Oncol. 2012, 30 (33): 4071-4076.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  118. Sparano JAWM, Martino S, Jones V, Perez EA, Saphner T, Wolff AC, Sledge GW, Wood WC, Davidson NE: Weekly paclitaxel in the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2008, 358 (16): 1663-1671.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  119. Tallman MSRG, Robert NJ, LeMaistre CF, Osborne CK, Vaughan WP, Gradishar WJ, Pisansky TM, Fetting J, Paietta E, Lazarus HM: Conventional Adjuvant Chemotherapy with or without High-Dose Chemotherapy and Autologous Stem-Cell Transplantation in High-Risk Breast Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003, 349 (1): 17-26.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  120. Tominaga T, Toi M, Abe O, Ohashi Y, Uchino J, Hayasaka H, Abe R, Izuo M, Enomoto K, Watanabe H, Yoshida M, Taguchi T, Koyama H, Senoo T, Toge T, Monden Y, Hattori T, Nomura Y, Sugimachi K, Hirata K, Nakazato H, Miura S, Morimoto T, Asaishi K, Kimijima I, Ota J, Sonoo H, Yamaguchi S, 5′-BC Study Group (5′-DFUR Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer Study Group): The effect of adjuvant 5′-deoxy-5-fluorouridine in early stage breast cancer patients: results from a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Int J Oncol. 2002, 20 (3): 517-525.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  121. Watanabe T, Sano M, Takashima S, Kitaya T, Tokuda Y, Yoshimoto M, Kohno N, Nakagami K, Iwata H, Shimozuma K, Sonoo H, Tsuda H, Sakamoto G, Ohashi Y: Oral Uracil and Tegafur Compared With Classic Cyclophosphamide, Methotrexate, Fluorouracil As Postoperative Chemotherapy in Patients With Node-Negative, High-Risk Breast Cancer: National Surgical Adjuvant Study for Breast Cancer 01 Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2009, 27 (9): 1368-1374.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  122. Sirohi B, A’Hern R, Coombes G, Bliss JM, Hickish T, Perren T, Crawford M, O’Brien M, Iveson T, Ebbs S, Skene A, Laing R, Smith IE: A randomised comparative trial of infusional ECisF versus conventional FEC as adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer: the TRAFIC trial. Ann Oncol. 2010, 21 (8): 1623-1629.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  123. Tada K, Yoshimoto M, Nishimura S, Takahashi K, Makita M, Iwase T, Takahashi S, Ito Y, Hatake K, Ueno M, Nakagawa K, Kasumi F: Comparison of two-year and five-year tamoxifen use in Japanese post-menopausal women. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2004, 30 (10): 1077-1083.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  124. Adjuvant Breast Cancer Trials Collaborative Group: Polychemotherapy for early breast cancer: results from the international adjuvant breast cancer chemotherapy randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007, 99 (7): 506-515.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  125. Adjuvant Breast Cancer Trials Collaborative Group: Ovarian ablation or suppression in premenopausal early breast cancer: results from the international adjuvant breast cancer ovarian ablation or suppression randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007, 99 (7): 516-525.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  126. Martin M, Villar A, Sole-Calvo A, Gonzalez R, Massuti B, Lizon J, Camps C, Carrato A, Casado A, Candel MT, Albanell J, Aranda J, Munarriz B, Campbell J, Diaz-Rubio E, GEICAM Group (Spanish Breast Cancer Research Group), Spain: 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. 2003, 14 (6): 833-842.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  127. Linden HM, Haskell CM, Green SJ, Osborne CK, Sledge GW, Shapiro CL, Ingle JN, Lew D, Hutchins LF, Livingston RB, Martino S: 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. 2007, 25 (6): 656-661.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  128. Recommended breast cancer surveillance guidelines: American Society of Clinical Oncology. J Clin Oncol. 1997, 15 (5): 2149-2156.Google Scholar
  129. Oltra A, Santaballa A, Munarriz B, Pastor M, Montalar J: Cost-benefit analysis of a follow-up program in patients with breast cancer: a randomized prospective study. Breast J. 2007, 13 (6): 571-574.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  130. van Hezewijk M, van den Akker ME, van de Velde CJ, Scholten AN, Hille ET: Costs of different follow-up strategies in early breast cancer: a review of the literature. Breast. 2012, 21 (6): 693-700.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  131. Kokko R, Hakama M, Holli K: Follow-up cost of breast cancer patients with localized disease after primary treatment: a randomized trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2005, 93 (3): 255-260.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  132. Pagani O, Senkus E, Wood W, Colleoni M, Cufer T, Kyriakides S, Costa A, Winer EP, Cardoso F: International Guidelines for Management of Metastatic Breast Cancer: Can Metastatic Breast Cancer Be Cured?. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010, 102 (7): 456-463.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  133. Ogawa Y, Ikeda K, Izumi T, Okuma S, Ichiki M, Ikeya T, Morimoto J, Nishiguchi Y, Ikehara T: First indicators of relapse in breast cancer: evaluation of the follow-up program at our hospital. Int J Clin Oncol. 2012, 18 (3): 447-53.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  134. Barni S, Venturini M, Molino A, Donadio M, Rizzoli S, Maiello E, Gori S: Importance of adherence to guidelines in breast cancer clinical practice. The Italian experience (AIOM). Tumori. 2011, 97 (5): 559-563.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  135. Donnelly P, Hiller L, Bathers S, Bowden S, Coleman R: Questioning specialists’ attitudes to breast cancer follow-up in primary care. Ann Oncol. 2007, 18 (9): 1467-1476.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  136. Montgomery DA, Krupa K, Cooke TG: Alternative methods of follow up in breast cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Br J Cancer. 2007, 96 (11): 1625-1632.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  137. Geurts SM, De Vegt F, Siesling S, Flobbe K, Aben KK, Van Der Heiden Van Der Loo M, Verbeek AL, Van Dijck JA, Tjan Heijnen VC: Pattern of follow-up care and early relapse detection in breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012, 136 (3): 859-868.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  138. Dewar JA, Kerr GR: Value of routine follow up of women treated for early carcinoma of the breast. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1985, 291 (6507): 1464-1467.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  139. Pandya KJ, McFadden ET, Kalish LA, Tormey DC, Taylor SG, Falkson G: A retrospective study of earliest indicators of recurrence in patients on Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group adjuvant chemotherapy trials for breast cancer. A preliminary report. Cancer. 1985, 55 (1): 202-205.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  140. Schapira DV, Urban N: A minimalist policy for breast cancer surveillance. JAMA. 1991, 265 (3): 380-382.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  141. Zwaveling A, Albers GH, Felthuis W, Hermans J: An evaluation of routine follow-up for detection of breast cancer recurrences. J Surg Oncol. 1987, 34 (3): 194-197.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  142. Smith TJ, Davidson NE, Schapira DV, Grunfeld E, Muss HB, Vogel VG, Somerfield MR: American Society of Clinical Oncology 1998 update of recommended breast cancer surveillance guidelines. J Clin Oncol. 1999, 17 (3): 1080-1082.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  143. Bonomi M, Pilotto S, Milella M, Massari F, Cingarlini S, Brunelli M, Chilosi M, Tortora G, Bria E: Adjuvant chemotherapy for resected non-small-cell lung cancer: future perspectives for clinical research. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2011, 30 (1): 115-123.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Sperduti et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2013

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.