We have located links that may give you full text access.
CLINICAL TRIAL, PHASE III
JOURNAL ARTICLE
MULTICENTER STUDY
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Dose-dense adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer patients: results from a randomized trial.
Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2005 December 8
BACKGROUND: To determine whether a dose-dense regimen improves outcome in early breast cancer patients, we compared outcomes with the same fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FEC) chemotherapeutic regimen administered every 3 weeks (FEC21) or administered every 2 weeks (FEC14 including support with filgrastim, a granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) in a multicenter phase III randomized trial.
METHODS: A total of 1214 patients with early-stage breast cancer were randomly assigned to receive six cycles of FEC14 (604 patients) or of FEC21 (610 patients). Study endpoints were overall survival and event-free survival. Associations were assessed by multivariable analysis with adjustment for age; tumor size; grade; proliferative rate; and menopausal, lymph node, estrogen receptor, and progesterone receptor status. All statistical tests were two-sided.
RESULTS: Patients in the FEC14 arm had fewer dose reductions or treatment delays or discontinuation (26%) than those in the FEC21 arm (33%) (difference = 7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2% to 12%; P = .008). FEC14 therapy, compared with FEC21 therapy, was associated with more asthenia (36% versus 29%, difference = 7%, 95% CI = 2% to 12%; P = .01), bone pain (33% versus 4%, difference = 29%, 95% CI = 25% to 33%; P < .001), anemia (38% versus 19%, difference = 19%, 95% CI = 14% to 24%; P < .001), and thrombocytopenia (8% versus 2%, difference = 6%, 95% CI = 4% to 9%; P < .001), but with less leukopenia (12% versus 45%, difference = 33%, 95% CI = 28% to 37%; P < .001). No acute myelogenous leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome was observed. At a median follow-up of 10.4 years, no statistically significant difference in the hazard of death (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.67 to 1.13) or recurrence (HR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.71 to 1.08) was found between FEC14 and FEC21 groups after adjustment by multivariable analysis. Although the study was underpowered for subset analysis, we found no evidence that the effect of the treatment type was associated with any of the potential prognostic factors.
CONCLUSION: Our results support the long-term safety of FEC14 chemotherapy as an adjuvant treatment of breast cancer. However, this therapy was not associated with improved outcome, but because of the limited statistical power of our study, we cannot rule out a modest improvement in outcome associated with FEC14 therapy.
METHODS: A total of 1214 patients with early-stage breast cancer were randomly assigned to receive six cycles of FEC14 (604 patients) or of FEC21 (610 patients). Study endpoints were overall survival and event-free survival. Associations were assessed by multivariable analysis with adjustment for age; tumor size; grade; proliferative rate; and menopausal, lymph node, estrogen receptor, and progesterone receptor status. All statistical tests were two-sided.
RESULTS: Patients in the FEC14 arm had fewer dose reductions or treatment delays or discontinuation (26%) than those in the FEC21 arm (33%) (difference = 7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2% to 12%; P = .008). FEC14 therapy, compared with FEC21 therapy, was associated with more asthenia (36% versus 29%, difference = 7%, 95% CI = 2% to 12%; P = .01), bone pain (33% versus 4%, difference = 29%, 95% CI = 25% to 33%; P < .001), anemia (38% versus 19%, difference = 19%, 95% CI = 14% to 24%; P < .001), and thrombocytopenia (8% versus 2%, difference = 6%, 95% CI = 4% to 9%; P < .001), but with less leukopenia (12% versus 45%, difference = 33%, 95% CI = 28% to 37%; P < .001). No acute myelogenous leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome was observed. At a median follow-up of 10.4 years, no statistically significant difference in the hazard of death (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.67 to 1.13) or recurrence (HR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.71 to 1.08) was found between FEC14 and FEC21 groups after adjustment by multivariable analysis. Although the study was underpowered for subset analysis, we found no evidence that the effect of the treatment type was associated with any of the potential prognostic factors.
CONCLUSION: Our results support the long-term safety of FEC14 chemotherapy as an adjuvant treatment of breast cancer. However, this therapy was not associated with improved outcome, but because of the limited statistical power of our study, we cannot rule out a modest improvement in outcome associated with FEC14 therapy.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app