Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

Intermittent versus continuous chemotherapy beyond first-line for patients with HER2-negative advanced breast cancer (BOOG 2010-02)


03 May 2019


Poster lunch


Frans Erdkamp


Annals of Oncology (2019) 30 (suppl_3): iii47-iii64. 10.1093/annonc/mdz100


F.L.G. Erdkamp1, A.K.M. Claessens1, M. Lopez-Yurda2, J.M. Bouma3, H. van Tinteren2, J.M. Rademaker-Lakhai4, A.H. Honkoop5, H. de Graaf6, V.C.G. Tjan-Heijnen7, M.M.E.M. Bos8

Author affiliations

  • 1 Internal Medicine - Oncology, Zuyderland Medical Center - Sittard-Geleen, 6162 BG - Sittard-Geleen/NL
  • 2 Biometrics, Netherlands Cancer Institute, 1066 CX - Amsterdam/NL
  • 3 Trial Registation, Comprehensive Cancer Centre the Netherlands, 3011 BN - Rotterdam/NL
  • 4 Boog Study Center, Dutch Breast Cancer Research Group, 1076 CV - Amsterdam/NL
  • 5 Medical Oncology, Isala Klinieken, 8025 AB - Zwolle/NL
  • 6 Medical Oncology, Medical Center Leeuwarden, 8901 BR - Leeuwarden/NL
  • 7 Medical Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Center+ (MUMC+), 6202 AZ - Maastricht/NL
  • 8 Medical Oncology, Erasmus University Medical Center, 3015 CE - Rotterdam/NL


Abstract 289


This study investigates efficacy and safety of intermittent versus continuous scheduling of chemotherapy over two treatment lines for patients within the Stop & Go trial.


Participants were randomized to two sets of four cycles (intermittent) or eight consecutive cycles (continuous) of chemotherapy in two treatment lines. First-line consisted of paclitaxel plus bevacizumab, second-line of capecitabine or non-pegylated liposomal doxorubicin. The primary endpoint of the present study was progression-free survival (PFS) of second-line treatment.


Characteristics at randomization were well-balanced. Patients with a good baseline performance status, only non-visceral metastasis, longer disease-free-interval, and HR-positive disease more often started second-line study treatment. For patients who started second line study treatment (n = 270; 131 vs. 139 in intermittent vs. continuous arm) median PFS in second-line was respectively 3.5 vs. 5.0 months with a Hazard Ratio (HR) of 1.04 (95%CI 0.69-1.57), and median OS in second-line was 10.6 vs.12.0 months, with a HR of 1.64 (95%CI 1.08 – 2.48). The median combined first- and second-line PFS for this population was 14.6 vs. 16.6 months with a HR of 1.59 (95%CI 1.04 – 2.45), and median OS measured from randomization was 20.3 vs. 23.0 months with a HR of 1.93 (95%CI 1.26 – 2.95). For all randomized patients (n = 420) median combined first- and second-line PFS was 12.7 vs. 13.9 months, with a HR of 1.21 (95%CI 0.9 – 1.63), and OS measured from randomization was 17.1 vs. 20.9 months with a HR of 1.37 (95%CI 1.03 - 1.54) for intermittent vs. continuous scheduling respectively. Selected baseline characteristics and first-line PFS duration were not significantly associated with second-line PFS in exploratory analyses. However, patients with longer first-line PFS more often started second-line study treatment (odds ratio 2.13; 95%CI 1.20 – 3.78) compared to patients with shorter first-line PFS. Details on safety will be presented at the meeting.


In conclusion, considering the overall survival benefits of continuous scheduling in both first- and second-line chemotherapy, we recommend this strategy for treatment of advanced breast cancer.

Editorial acknowledgement

Clinical trial identification

EudraCT 2010-021519-18; BOOG 2010-02.

Legal entity responsible for the study

Dutch Breast Cancer Research Group (BOOG).


F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, The Netherlands TEVA Nederland, B.V.


F.L.G. Erdkamp: Honoraria, consulting/advisory role: Roche, Novartis. V.C.G. Tjan-Heijnen: Honoraria: E. Lilly, Pfizer; Funding for her institution: E. Lilly, Roche, Eisai, Pfizer, Novartis; Travel expenses: E. Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Roche; Consulting or advisory role: E. Lilly, Pfizer, Roche. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Resources from the same session

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings