Literature DB >> 12610183

Final results of a randomized phase III trial comparing cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and fluorouracil with a dose-intensified epirubicin and cyclophosphamide + filgrastim as neoadjuvant treatment in locally advanced breast cancer: an EORTC-NCIC-SAKK multicenter study.

P Therasse1, L Mauriac, M Welnicka-Jaskiewicz, P Bruning, T Cufer, H Bonnefoi, E Tomiak, K I Pritchard, A Hamilton, M J Piccart.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of a standard anthracycline-based regimen to a dose-intensified anthracycline regimen in locally advanced breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Locally advanced breast cancer patients were randomly assigned onto a study comparing cyclophosphamide (C; 75 mg/m(2) orally days 1 to 14), epirubicin (E; 60 mg/m(2) intravenously [IV] days 1, 8), and fluorouracil (F; 500 mg/m(2) IV days 1, 8) six cycles every 28 days versus E (120 mg/m(2) IV day 1), C (830 mg/m(2) IV day 1), and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (filgrastim; 5 micro g/kg/d subcutaneously days 2 to 13) six cycles every 14 days. The study was designed to detect a 15% improvement; that is, from 50% to 65% in median progression-free survival (PFS) in favor of the dose-intensified regimen.
RESULTS: A total of 448 patients were enrolled over a period of 3 years. The median dose intensity delivered for C and E reached, respectively, 85% and 87% of that planned in the CEF arm and 96% and 95% of that planned in the EC arm. The dose-intensified arm was slightly more emetogenic and generated more grade 3 to 4 anemia but less febrile neutropenia episodes. After a median follow-up of 5.5 years, 277 events have been reported. The median PFS was 34 and 33.7 months for CEF and EC, respectively (P =.68), and the 5-year survival rate was 53% and 51% for CEF and EC, respectively (P =.94).
CONCLUSION: Dose-intensified EC does not provide a measurable therapeutic benefit over CEF as neoadjuvant chemotherapy for unselected locally advanced breast cancer patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12610183     DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2003.05.135

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0732-183X            Impact factor:   44.544


  45 in total

Review 1.  Filling in the gaps: reporting of concurrent supportive care therapies in breast cancer chemotherapy trials.

Authors:  Orit Freedman; Eitan Amir; Camilla Zimmermann; Mark Clemons
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2011-01-04       Impact factor: 3.603

2.  Quantitative DCE-MRI for prediction of pathological complete response following neoadjuvant treatment for locally advanced breast cancer: the impact of breast cancer subtypes on the diagnostic accuracy.

Authors:  Stylianos Drisis; Thierry Metens; Michael Ignatiadis; Konstantinos Stathopoulos; Shih-Li Chao; Marc Lemort
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-08-27       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Feasibility of using administrative claims data for cost-effectiveness analysis of a clinical trial.

Authors:  Andre Konski; Mythreyi Bhargavan; Jean Owen; Rebecca Paulus; Jay Cooper; Karen K Fu; Kian Ang; Deborah Watkins-Bruner
Journal:  J Med Econ       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 2.448

4.  Mapping the QLQ-C30 quality of life cancer questionnaire to EQ-5D patient preferences.

Authors:  Ralph Crott; Andrew Briggs
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2010-05-16

5.  Prospective phase II study of neoadjuvant doxorubicin followed by cisplatin/docetaxel in locally advanced breast cancer.

Authors:  Taher A Al-Tweigeri; Dahish S Ajarim; Adher A Alsayed; Mohamed M Rahal; Mohamed O Alshabanah; Asma M Tulbah; Osama A Al-Malik; Doha M Fatani; Gamal A El-Husseiny; Naser B Elkum; Adnan A Ezzat
Journal:  Med Oncol       Date:  2009-06-13       Impact factor: 3.064

6.  A Canadian national expert consensus on neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer: linking practice to evidence and beyond.

Authors:  C E Simmons; S Hogeveen; R Leonard; Y Rajmohan; D Han; A Wong; J Lee; M Brackstone; J F Boileau; R Dinniwell; S Gandhi
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 3.677

7.  Time interval of neoadjuvant chemotherapy to surgery in breast cancer: how long is acceptable?

Authors:  Tae-Kyung Yoo; Hyeong-Gon Moon; Wonshik Han; Dong-Young Noh
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2017-02

8.  Neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced breast cancer: Focus on chemotherapy and biological targeted treatments' armamentarium.

Authors:  Konstantinos Papadimitriou; Konstantinos Papademetriou; Alexandros Ardavanis; Panteleimon Kountourakis
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 2.895

9.  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.

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

10.  An assessment of the external validity of mapping QLQ-C30 to EQ-5D preferences.

Authors:  Ralph Crott; Matthijs Versteegh; Carin Uyl-de-Groot
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2012-06-29       Impact factor: 4.147

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.