Safety and Efficacy of Using a Single Agent or a Phase II Agent Before Instituting Standard Combination Chemotherapy in Previously Untreated Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients: Report of a Randomized Study—Cancer and Leukemia Group B 8642
-
Published:1999-05
Issue:5
Volume:17
Page:1397-1397
-
ISSN:0732-183X
-
Container-title:Journal of Clinical Oncology
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:JCO
Author:
Costanza Mary E.1, Weiss Raymond B.1, Henderson I. Craig1, Norton Larry1, Berry Donald A.1, Cirrincione Constance1, Winer Eric1, Wood William C.1, Frei III Emil1, McIntyre O. Ross1, Schilsky Richard L.1
Affiliation:
1. From the Department of Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA; Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, DC; Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD; University of California, San Francisco, CA; Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA; Dartmouth Medical School, Cotton Cancer Center, Lebanon, NH; and...
Abstract
PURPOSE: We undertook a prospective, randomized phase III trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of using a phase II agent before initiating therapy with standard combination chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 365 women with measurable metastatic breast cancer, previously untreated with chemotherapy for their metastatic disease, were randomized to receive either immediate chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and fluorouracil (CAF) or up to four cycles of one of five sequential cohorts of single-agent drugs: trimetrexate, melphalan, amonafide, carboplatin, or elsamitrucin, followed by CAF. RESULTS: The toxicity of each single agent followed by CAF was comparable to that of CAF alone. The cumulative response rates for the single agent followed by CAF were not statistically different from those of CAF alone (44% v 52%; P = .24). However, in the multivariate analysis, patients with visceral disease had a trend toward lower response rates on the phase II agent plus CAF arm (P = .078). Although survival and response duration also were not statistically significantly different between the two study arms (P = .074 and P = .069, respectively), there was a suggestion of benefit for the CAF-only arm. CONCLUSION: The brief use of a phase II agent, regardless of its efficacy, followed by CAF resulted in response rates, toxicities, durations of response, and survival statistically equivalent to those seen with the use of CAF alone. These findings support the use of a new paradigm for the evaluation of phase II agents in the treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer.
Publisher
American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
Subject
Cancer Research,Oncology
Reference49 articles.
1. Sledge GW Jr, Antman KH: Progress in chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. Semin Oncol 19:317,1992-332, 2. Randomized comparison of vinorelbine and melphalan in anthracycline-refractory advanced breast cancer. 3. Hoogstraten B: Adriamycin (NSC-123127) in the management of advanced breast cancer: Studies of the Southwest Oncology Group. Cancer Chemother Rep 6:329,1975-334, 4. Muss H, Van Echo D, Korzun AH, et al: Esorubicin (4′-deoxydoxorubicin, NSC 267469) in advanced breast cancer. Am J Clin Oncol 13:333,1990-337, 5. Simon R, Wittes RE, Ellenberg SS: Randomized phase II clinical trials. Cancer Treat Rep 69:1375,1985-1381,
Cited by
32 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|