Adjuvant cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and 5-fluorouracil (CMF) have proven highly effective in rapidly proliferating breast cancer (RPBC). It has also been seen that sequential administration of doxorubicin and CMF is superior to their alternation, especially in indolent tumors. In a phase III study, we evaluated whether adjuvant epirubicin (E) followed by CMF is superior to the inverse sequence in RPBC. Patients with node-negative or 1–3 node-positive RPBC (Thymidine Labeling Index > 3% or histological grade 3 or S-phase > 10% or Ki67 > 20%) were randomized to receive E (100 mg/m2 i.v. d1, q21 days for 4 cycles) followed by CMF (600, 40, 600 mg/m2 i.v. d1 and 8, q28 days for 4 cycles) (E → CMF) or CMF followed by E (CMF → E) or CMF for 6 cycles. From November 1997 to December 2004, 1066 patients were enrolled: E → CMF 440, CMF → E 438, and CMF 188. At a median follow-up of 69 months, 5-year OS was 91% (95% CI 88–94) for E → CMF and 93% (95% CI 90–95) for CMF → E, with adjusted hazard ratio of 0.88 (95% CI 0.58–1.35), and DFS was 80% in both arms, with adjusted hazard ratio of 0.99 (95% CI 0.73–1.33, Cox model). Adverse events were similar, apart from a higher rate of neutropenia in the CMF → E arm. No important differences in clinical outcome were observed between the two different sequences, making both a valid option in early breast cancer. Further molecular characterization of the tumors might help to identify subgroups achieving higher benefit from either sequence.

Randomized phase III trial of adjuvant epirubicin followed by cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and 5-fluorouracil (CMF) versus CMF followed by epirubicin in patients with node-negative or 1-3 node-positive rapidly proliferating breast cancer.

BIGLIA, Nicoletta;
2011-01-01

Abstract

Adjuvant cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and 5-fluorouracil (CMF) have proven highly effective in rapidly proliferating breast cancer (RPBC). It has also been seen that sequential administration of doxorubicin and CMF is superior to their alternation, especially in indolent tumors. In a phase III study, we evaluated whether adjuvant epirubicin (E) followed by CMF is superior to the inverse sequence in RPBC. Patients with node-negative or 1–3 node-positive RPBC (Thymidine Labeling Index > 3% or histological grade 3 or S-phase > 10% or Ki67 > 20%) were randomized to receive E (100 mg/m2 i.v. d1, q21 days for 4 cycles) followed by CMF (600, 40, 600 mg/m2 i.v. d1 and 8, q28 days for 4 cycles) (E → CMF) or CMF followed by E (CMF → E) or CMF for 6 cycles. From November 1997 to December 2004, 1066 patients were enrolled: E → CMF 440, CMF → E 438, and CMF 188. At a median follow-up of 69 months, 5-year OS was 91% (95% CI 88–94) for E → CMF and 93% (95% CI 90–95) for CMF → E, with adjusted hazard ratio of 0.88 (95% CI 0.58–1.35), and DFS was 80% in both arms, with adjusted hazard ratio of 0.99 (95% CI 0.73–1.33, Cox model). Adverse events were similar, apart from a higher rate of neutropenia in the CMF → E arm. No important differences in clinical outcome were observed between the two different sequences, making both a valid option in early breast cancer. Further molecular characterization of the tumors might help to identify subgroups achieving higher benefit from either sequence.
2011
125: 3
775
784
Sequential adjuvant chemotherapy strategy – Epirubicin – CMF – Randomized phase III study – Rapidly proliferating breast cancer
Dino Amadori; Rosella Silvestrini; Mario De Lena; Francesco Boccardo; Andrea Rocca; Emanuela Scarpi; Francesco Schittulli; Mario Brandi; Roberta Malto...espandi
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Randomized phase III trial Amadori 2011.pdf

Open Access dal 02/12/2012

Tipo di file: POSTPRINT (VERSIONE FINALE DELL’AUTORE)
Dimensione 942.13 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
942.13 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2318/83667
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 8
  • Scopus 18
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 17
social impact