BACKGROUND:

Zoledronic acid reduces skeletal-related events in patients with breast cancer, but concerns have been raised about prolonged monthly administration. We assessed the efficacy and safety of a reduced dosing frequency of zoledronic acid in women treated previously with monthly zoledronic acid.

METHODS:

We did this non-inferiority, phase 3 trial in 62 centres in Italy. We enrolled patients with breast cancer who had one or more bone metastases and had completed 12-15 months of monthly treatment with zoledronic acid. Patients were randomly assigned with a permutated block (size four to eight) random list stratified by centre in a 1:1 ratio to zoledronic acid 4 mg once every 12 weeks or once every 4 weeks, and followed up for at least 1 year. Neither patients nor investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was skeletal morbidity rate (skeletal-related events per patient per year) in the intention-to-treat population. We used a non-inferiority margin of 0·19. The trial is registered with EudraCT, number 2005-004942-15.

FINDINGS:

We screened 430 patients and enrolled 425, of whom 209 were assigned to the 12-week group and 216 to the 4-week group. The skeletal morbidity rate was 0·26 (95% CI 0·15-0·37) in the 12-week group versus 0·22 (0·14-0·29) in the 4-week group. The between-group difference was 0·04 and the upper limit of one-tailed 97·5% CI was 0·17, which is lower than the non-inferiority margin. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were bone pain (56 [27%] patients in the 12-week group vs 65 [30%] in the 4-week group), nausea (24 [11%] vs 33 [15%]), and asthenia (18 [9%] vs 33 [15%]). Renal adverse events occurred in one patient (<1%) in the 12-week group versus two (1%) in the 4-week group. One patient (<1%) in the 4-week group had grade 1 acute renal failure. Osteonecrosis of the jaw occurred in four patients in the 12-week group versus three in the 4-week group. No treatment-related deaths were reported. Median N-terminal telopeptide concentration changed from baseline more in the 12-week group than in the 4-week group after 12 months (12·2%vs 0·0%; p=0·011).

INTERPRETATION:

Our results raise the possibility of decreasing administration of zoledronic acid to a 12-weekly regimen to reduce exposure during the second year, while maintaining its therapeutic effects. However, the effects on N-terminal telopeptide should be investigated further before changing current practice. FUNDING: Novartis Farma.

BACKGROUND:

Superficial basal-cell carcinoma is most commonly treated with topical non-surgical treatments, such as photodynamic therapy or topical creams. Photodynamic therapy is considered the preferable treatment, although this has not been previously tested in a randomised control trial. We assessed the effectiveness of photodynamic therapy compared with imiquimod or fluorouracil in patients with superficial basal-cell carcinoma.

METHODS:

In this single blind, non-inferiority, randomised controlled multicentre trial, we enrolled patients with a histologically proven superficial basal-cell carcinoma at seven hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients were randomly assigned to receive treatment with methylaminolevulinate photodynamic therapy (MAL-PDT; two sessions with an interval of 1 week), imiquimod cream (once daily, five times a week for 6 weeks), or fluorouracil cream (twice daily for 4 weeks). Follow-up was at 3 and 12 months post-treatment. Data were collected by one observer who was blinded to the assigned treatment. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients free of tumour at both 3 and 12 month follow up. A pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 10% was used and modified intention-to-treat analyses were done. This trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN 79701845).

FINDINGS:

601 patients were randomised: 202 to receive MAL-PDT, 198 to receive imiquimod, and 201 to receive fluorouracil. A year after treatment, 52 of 196 patients treated with MAL-PDT, 31 of 189 treated with imiquimod, and 39 of 198 treated with fluorouracil had tumour residue or recurrence. The proportion of patients tumour-free at both 3 and 12 month follow-up was 72·8% (95% CI 66·8-79·4) for MAL-PDT, 83·4% (78·2-88·9) for imiquimod cream, and 80·1% (74·7-85·9) for fluorouracil cream. The difference between imiquimod and MAL-PDT was 10·6% (95% CI 1·5-19·5; p=0·021) and 7·3% (-1·9 to 16·5; p=0·120) between fluorouracil and MAL-PDT, and between fluorouracil and imiquimod was -3·3% (-11·6 to 5·0; p=0·435. For patients treated with MAL-PDT, moderate to severe pain and burning sensation were reported most often during the actual MAL-PDT session. For other local adverse reactions, local skin redness was most often reported as moderate or severe in all treatment groups. Patients treated with creams more often reported moderate to severe local swelling, erosion, crust formation, and itching of the skin than patients treated with MAL-PDT. In the MAL-PDT group no serious adverse events were reported. One patient treated with imiquimod and two patients treated with fluorouracil developed a local wound infection and needed additional treatment in the outpatient setting.

INTERPRETATION:

Topical fluorouracil was non-inferior and imiquimod was superior to MAL-PDT for treatment of superficial basal-cell carcinoma. On the basis of these findings, imiquimod can be considered the preferred treatment, but all aspects affecting treatment choice should be weighted to select the best treatment for patients. FUNDING: Grant of the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research ZONMW (08-82310-98-08626).

BACKGROUND:

The optimum timing of sentinel-lymph-node biopsy for breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy is uncertain. The SENTINA (SENTinel NeoAdjuvant) study was designed to evaluate a specific algorithm for timing of a standardised sentinel-lymph-node biopsy procedure in patients who undergo neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

METHODS:

SENTINA is a four-arm, prospective, multicentre cohort study undertaken at 103 institutions in Germany and Austria. Women with breast cancer who were scheduled for neoadjuvant chemotherapy were enrolled into the study. Patients with clinically node-negative disease (cN0) underwent sentinel-lymph-node biopsy before neoadjuvant chemotherapy (arm A). If the sentinel node was positive (pN1), a second sentinel-lymph-node biopsy procedure was done after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (arm B). Women with clinically node-positive disease (cN+) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Those who converted to clinically node-negative disease after chemotherapy (ycN0; arm C) were treated with sentinel-lymph-node biopsy and axillary dissection. Only patients whose clinical nodal status remained positive (ycN1) underwent axillary dissection without sentinel-lymph-node biopsy (arm D). The primary endpoint was accuracy (false-negative rate) of sentinel-lymph-node biopsy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients who converted from cN1 to ycN0 disease during neoadjuvant chemotherapy (arm C). Secondary endpoints included comparison of the detection rate of sentinel-lymph-node biopsy before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and also the false-negative rate and detection rate of sentinel-lymph-node biopsy after removal of the sentinel lymph node. Analyses were done according to treatment received (per protocol).

FINDINGS:

Of 1737 patients who received treatment, 1022 women underwent sentinel-lymph-node biopsy before neoadjuvant chemotherapy (arms A and B), with a detection rate of 99·1% (95% CI 98·3-99·6; 1013 of 1022). In patients who converted after neoadjuvant chemotherapy from cN+ to ycN0 (arm C), the detection rate was 80·1% (95% CI 76·6-83·2; 474 of 592) and false-negative rate was 14·2% (95% CI 9·9-19·4; 32 of 226). The false-negative rate was 24·3% (17 of 70) for women who had one node removed and 18·5% (10 of 54) for those who had two sentinel nodes removed (arm C). In patients who had a second sentinel-lymph-node biopsy procedure after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (arm B), the detection rate was 60·8% (95% CI 55·6-65·9; 219 of 360) and the false-negative rate was 51·6% (95% CI 38·7-64·2; 33 of 64).

INTERPRETATION:

Sentinel-lymph-node biopsy is a reliable diagnostic method before neoadjuvant chemotherapy. After systemic treatment or early sentinel-lymph-node biopsy, the procedure has a lower detection rate and a higher false-negative rate compared with sentinel-lymph-node biopsy done before neoadjuvant chemotherapy. These limitations should be considered if biopsy is planned after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. FUNDING: Brustkrebs Deutschland, German Society for Senology, German Breast Group.