Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16293862/ below:

Randomized, controlled trial of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil versus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and fluorouracil with and without tamoxifen for high-risk, node-negative breast cancer: treatment results of Intergroup Protocol INT-0102

Randomized Controlled Trial

Affiliations

• ¹ University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA.

• PMID: 16293862
• DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2005.08.071

Item in Clipboard

Randomized Controlled Trial

Laura F Hutchins et al. J Clin Oncol. 2005.

• ¹ University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA.

• PMID: 16293862
• DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2005.08.071

Item in Clipboard

Purpose: We evaluated the efficacy of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) versus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and fluorouracil (CAF) in node-negative breast cancer patients with and without tamoxifen (TAM), overall and by hormone receptor (HR) status.

Patients and methods: Node-negative patients identified by tumor size (> 2 cm), negative HR, or high S-phase fraction (n = 2,690) were randomly assigned to CMF, CAF, CMF + TAM (CMFT), or CAF + TAM (CAFT). Cox regression evaluated overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) for CAF versus CMF and TAM versus no TAM separately. Two-sided CIs and one-sided P values for planned comparisons were calculated.

Results: Ten-year estimates indicated that CAF was not significantly better than CMF (P = .13) for the primary outcome of DFS (77% v 75%; HR = 1.09; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.27). CAF had slightly better OS than CMF (85% v 82%, HR = 1.19 for CMF v CAF; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.43); values were statistically significant in the planned one-sided test (P = .03). Toxicity was greater with CAF and did not increase with TAM. Overall, TAM had no benefit (DFS, P = .16; OS, P = .37), but the TAM effect differed by HR groups. For HR-positive patients, TAM was beneficial (DFS, HR = 1.32 for no TAM v TAM; 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.61; P = .003; OS, HR = 1.26; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.61; P = .03), but not for HR-negative patients (DFS, HR = 0.81 for no TAM v TAM; 95% CI, 0.64 to 1.03; OS, HR = 0.79; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.05).

Conclusion: CAF did not improve DFS compared with CMF; there was a slight effect on OS. Given greater toxicity, we cannot conclude CAF to be superior to CMF. TAM is effective in HR-positive disease, but not in HR-negative disease.

PubMed Disclaimer

• Treatment of axillary lymph node-negative, estrogen receptor-negative breast cancer: updated findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project clinical trials.

  Fisher B, Jeong JH, Anderson S, Wolmark N. Fisher B, et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004 Dec 15;96(24):1823-31. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djh338. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004. PMID: 15601638 Clinical Trial.

• Sequencing of tamoxifen and radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery in early-stage breast cancer.

  Pierce LJ, Hutchins LF, Green SR, Lew DL, Gralow JR, Livingston RB, Osborne CK, Albain KS. Pierce LJ, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Jan 1;23(1):24-9. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.01.198. Epub 2004 Nov 15. J Clin Oncol. 2005. PMID: 15545669 Clinical Trial.

• A comparison of the outcomes of non-randomised chemotherapy regimens in node positive breast cancer.

  Kuru B, Camlibel M, Dinc S, Gulcelik MA, Atalay C, Alagol H. Kuru B, et al. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2005 Sep;24(3):363-72. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2005. PMID: 16270522 Clinical Trial.

• [CMF or CAF combination chemotherapy for breast cancer].

  Ota J. Ota J. Gan To Kagaku Ryoho. 1996 Dec;23(14):1886-90. Gan To Kagaku Ryoho. 1996. PMID: 8978791 Review. Japanese.

• [Evolution of adjuvant chemotherapy of breast cancer from Bonadonna to the taxanes].

  Nagykálnai T. Nagykálnai T. Magy Onkol. 2002;46(4):307-13. Epub 2003 Feb 1. Magy Onkol. 2002. PMID: 12563352 Review. Hungarian.

• Relevance of breast cancer hormone receptors and other factors to the efficacy of adjuvant tamoxifen: patient-level meta-analysis of randomised trials.

  Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG); Davies C, Godwin J, Gray R, Clarke M, Cutter D, Darby S, McGale P, Pan HC, Taylor C, Wang YC, Dowsett M, Ingle J, Peto R. Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG), et al. Lancet. 2011 Aug 27;378(9793):771-84. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60993-8. Epub 2011 Jul 28. Lancet. 2011. PMID: 21802721 Free PMC article.

• Application of the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (V.1.1) to the field of early breast cancer therapies.

  Paluch-Shimon S, Cherny NI, de Vries EGE, Dafni U, Piccart MJ, Latino NJ, Cardoso F. Paluch-Shimon S, et al. ESMO Open. 2020 Sep;5(5):e000743. doi: 10.1136/esmoopen-2020-000743. ESMO Open. 2020. PMID: 32893189 Free PMC article.

• Breast cancer follow-up strategies in randomized phase III adjuvant clinical trials: a systematic review.

  Sperduti I, Vici P, Tinari N, Gamucci T, De Tursi M, Cortese G, Grassadonia A, Iacobelli S, Natoli C. Sperduti I, et al. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2013 Nov 11;32(1):89. doi: 10.1186/1756-9966-32-89. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2013. PMID: 24438135 Free PMC article. Review.

• Clinical practice guidelines for the care and treatment of breast cancer: 15. Treatment for women with stage III or locally advanced breast cancer.

  Shenkier T, Weir L, Levine M, Olivotto I, Whelan T, Reyno L; Steering Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Care and Treatment of Breast Cancer. Shenkier T, et al. CMAJ. 2004 Mar 16;170(6):983-94. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.1030944. CMAJ. 2004. PMID: 15023926 Free PMC article. Review.

RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue

Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo

HTML: 3.2 | Encoding: UTF-8 | Version: 0.7.3