PURPOSE: This randomized, controlled, multicenter, open-label, phase III study compared docetaxel versus paclitaxel in patients with advanced breast cancer that had progressed after an anthracycline-containing chemotherapy regimen. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (n = 449) were randomly assigned to receive either docetaxel 100 mg/m2 (n = 225) or paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 (n = 224) on day 1, every 21 days until tumor progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. RESULTS: In the intent-to-treat population, both the median overall survival (OS, 15.4 v 12.7 months; hazard ratio [HR], 1.41; 95% CI, 1.15 to 1.73; P = .03) and the median time to progression (TTP, 5.7 months v 3.6 months; HR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.33 to 2.02; P < .0001) for docetaxel were significantly longer than for paclitaxel, and the overall response rate (ORR, 32% v 25%; P = .10) was higher for docetaxel. These results were confirmed by multivariate analyses. The incidence of treatment-related hematologic and nonhematologic toxicities was greater for docetaxel than for paclitaxel; however, quality-of-life scores were not statistically different between treatment groups over time. CONCLUSION:Docetaxel was superior to paclitaxel in terms of OS and TTP. ORR was higher for docetaxel. Hematologic and nonhematologic toxicities occurred more frequently in the docetaxel group. The global quality-of-life scores were similar for both agents over time.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: This randomized, controlled, multicenter, open-label, phase III study compared docetaxel versus paclitaxel in patients with advanced breast cancer that had progressed after an anthracycline-containing chemotherapy regimen. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (n = 449) were randomly assigned to receive either docetaxel 100 mg/m2 (n = 225) or paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 (n = 224) on day 1, every 21 days until tumor progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. RESULTS: In the intent-to-treat population, both the median overall survival (OS, 15.4 v 12.7 months; hazard ratio [HR], 1.41; 95% CI, 1.15 to 1.73; P = .03) and the median time to progression (TTP, 5.7 months v 3.6 months; HR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.33 to 2.02; P < .0001) for docetaxel were significantly longer than for paclitaxel, and the overall response rate (ORR, 32% v 25%; P = .10) was higher for docetaxel. These results were confirmed by multivariate analyses. The incidence of treatment-related hematologic and nonhematologic toxicities was greater for docetaxel than for paclitaxel; however, quality-of-life scores were not statistically different between treatment groups over time. CONCLUSION:Docetaxel was superior to paclitaxel in terms of OS and TTP. ORR was higher for docetaxel. Hematologic and nonhematologic toxicities occurred more frequently in the docetaxel group. The global quality-of-life scores were similar for both agents over time.
Authors: Stacy Moulder; Gregory Gladish; Joe Ensor; Ana Maria Gonzalez-Angulo; Massimo Cristofanilli; James L Murray; Daniel Booser; Sharon H Giordano; Abeena Brewster; Julia Moore; Edgardo Rivera; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Hai T Tran Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-10-17 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Justin Q Wang; Austin DeChalus; Devin N Chatterjee; Evan T Keller; Atsushi Mizokami; Giovanni Camussi; Andrew R Mendelsohn; Joseph F Renzulli Ii; Peter J Quesenberry; Devasis Chatterjee Journal: Crit Rev Oncog Date: 2015
Authors: Gary R Zirpoli; Susan E McCann; Lara E Sucheston-Campbell; Dawn L Hershman; Gregory Ciupak; Warren Davis; Joseph M Unger; Halle C F Moore; James A Stewart; Claudine Isaacs; Timothy J Hobday; Muhammad Salim; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Julie R Gralow; G Thomas Budd; Kathy S Albain; Christine B Ambrosone Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Hong Jae Chon; Sun Young Rha; Chong Kun Im; Chan Kim; Min Hee Hong; Hye Ryun Kim; Jung Ryun An; Sung Hoon Noh; Hyun Cheol Chung; Hei-Cheul Jeung Journal: Cancer Res Treat Date: 2009-12-31 Impact factor: 4.679
Authors: Rebecca A Miksad; Vera Zietemann; Raffaella Gothe; Ruth Schwarzer; Annette Conrads-Frank; Petra Schnell-Inderst; Björn Stollenwerk; Uwe Siebert Journal: Int J Technol Assess Health Care Date: 2008 Impact factor: 2.188