PURPOSE: In 1989, the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project initiated the B-22 trial to determine whether intensifying or intensifying and increasing the total dose of cyclophosphamide in a doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide combination would benefit women with primary breast cancer and positive axillary nodes. B-25 was initiated to determine whether further intensifying and increasing the cyclophosphamide dose would yield more favorable results. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (n = 2,548) were randomly assigned to three groups. The dose and intensity of doxorubicin were similar in all groups. Group 1 received four courses, ie, double the dose and intensity of cyclophosphamide given in the B-22 standard therapy group; group 2 received the same dose of cyclophosphamide as in group 1, administered in two courses (intensified); group 3 received double the dose of cyclophosphamide (intensified and increased) given in group 1. All patients received recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. Life-table estimates were used to determine disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival. RESULTS: No significant difference was observed in DFS (P =.20), distant DFS (P =.31), or survival (P =.76) among the three groups. At 5 years, the DFS in groups 1 and 2 (61% v 64%, respectively; P =. 29) was similar to but slightly lower than that in group 3 (61% v 66%, respectively; P = 08). Survival in group 1 was concordant with that in groups 2 (78% v 77%, respectively; P =.71) and 3 (78% v 79%, respectively; P =.86). Grade 4 toxicity was 20%, 34%, and 49% in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Severe infection and septic episodes increased in group 3. The decrease in the amount and intensity of cyclophosphamide and delays in therapy were greatest in courses 3 and 4 in group 3. The incidence of acute myeloid leukemia increased in all groups. CONCLUSION: Because intensifying and increasing cyclophosphamide two or four times that given in standard clinical practice did not substantively improve outcome, such therapy should be reserved for the clinical trial setting.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: In 1989, the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project initiated the B-22 trial to determine whether intensifying or intensifying and increasing the total dose of cyclophosphamide in a doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide combination would benefit women with primary breast cancer and positive axillary nodes. B-25 was initiated to determine whether further intensifying and increasing the cyclophosphamide dose would yield more favorable results. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (n = 2,548) were randomly assigned to three groups. The dose and intensity of doxorubicin were similar in all groups. Group 1 received four courses, ie, double the dose and intensity of cyclophosphamide given in the B-22 standard therapy group; group 2 received the same dose of cyclophosphamide as in group 1, administered in two courses (intensified); group 3 received double the dose of cyclophosphamide (intensified and increased) given in group 1. All patients received recombinant humangranulocyte colony-stimulating factor. Life-table estimates were used to determine disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival. RESULTS: No significant difference was observed in DFS (P =.20), distant DFS (P =.31), or survival (P =.76) among the three groups. At 5 years, the DFS in groups 1 and 2 (61% v 64%, respectively; P =. 29) was similar to but slightly lower than that in group 3 (61% v 66%, respectively; P = 08). Survival in group 1 was concordant with that in groups 2 (78% v 77%, respectively; P =.71) and 3 (78% v 79%, respectively; P =.86). Grade 4 toxicity was 20%, 34%, and 49% in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Severe infection and septic episodes increased in group 3. The decrease in the amount and intensity of cyclophosphamide and delays in therapy were greatest in courses 3 and 4 in group 3. The incidence of acute myeloid leukemia increased in all groups. CONCLUSION: Because intensifying and increasing cyclophosphamide two or four times that given in standard clinical practice did not substantively improve outcome, such therapy should be reserved for the clinical trial setting.
Authors: Ismail Jatoi; Hanna Bandos; Jong-Hyeon Jeong; William F Anderson; Edward H Romond; Eleftherios P Mamounas; Norman Wolmark Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2015-10-30 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Manuel Valdivieso; Benjamin W Corn; Janet E Dancey; D Lawrence Wickerham; L Elise Horvath; Edith A Perez; Alison Urton; Walter M Cronin; Erica Field; Evonne Lackey; Charles D Blanke Journal: Semin Oncol Date: 2015-07-10 Impact factor: 4.929
Authors: Donald A Berry; Naoto T Ueno; Marcella M Johnson; Xiudong Lei; Jean Caputo; Sjoerd Rodenhuis; William P Peters; Robert C Leonard; William E Barlow; Martin S Tallman; Jonas Bergh; Ulrike A Nitz; Alessandro M Gianni; Russell L Basser; Axel R Zander; R Charles Coombes; Henri Roché; Yutaka Tokuda; Elisabeth G E de Vries; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; John P Crown; Paolo Pedrazzoli; Marco Bregni; Taner Demirer Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-07-18 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Margot Burnell; Mark N Levine; Judith-Anne W Chapman; Vivien Bramwell; Karen Gelmon; Barbara Walley; Ted Vandenberg; Haji Chalchal; Kathy S Albain; Edith A Perez; Hope Rugo; Kathleen Pritchard; Patti O'Brien; Lois E Shepherd Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-11-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Raymond Tubbs; William E Barlow; G Thomas Budd; Eric Swain; Peggy Porter; Allen Gown; I-Ten Yeh; George Sledge; Charles Shapiro; James Ingle; Charles Haskell; Kathy S Albain; Robert Livingston; Daniel F Hayes Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-07-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Minetta C Liu; George D Demetri; Donald A Berry; Larry Norton; Gloria Broadwater; Nicholas J Robert; David Duggan; Daniel F Hayes; I Craig Henderson; Alan Lyss; Judith Hopkins; Peter A Kaufman; P Kelly Marcom; Jerry Younger; Nancy Lin; Katherine Tkaczuk; Eric P Winer; Clifford A Hudis Journal: Cancer Treat Rev Date: 2008-01-30 Impact factor: 12.111