Atlantic Health Sciences Corporation, Saint John, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
J Clin Oncol. 2010 Jan 1;28(1):77-82. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.22.1077. Epub 2009 Nov 9.
PURPOSE Cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and fluorouracil (CEF) and doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) followed by paclitaxel (T) are commonly used adjuvant regimens in women with early breast cancer. In a previous trial in women with locally advanced breast cancer, 3 months of high-dose epirubicin and cyclophosphamide (EC) administered every 2 weeks (dose-dense) was equivalent to 6 months of CEF. We hypothesized that 3 months of paclitaxel after dose-dense EC (EC/T) would be superior to CEF or AC/T. METHODS After lumpectomy or mastectomy, women 60 years of age or younger with axillary node-positive or high-risk node-negative breast cancer were randomly assigned to receive CEF, EC/T, or AC/T for 6 months. This article reports the interim analysis for recurrence-free survival (RFS), which was planned after 227 recurrences. Results A total of 2,104 patients were enrolled. The median follow-up is 30.4 months. Hazard ratios for recurrence are as follows: AC/T versus CEF, 1.49 (95% CI, 1.12 to 1.99), P = .005; AC/T versus EC/T, 1.68 (95% CI, 1.25 to 2.27), P = .0006; and EC/T versus CEF, 0.89 (95% CI, 0.64 to 1.22), P = .46. Three-year RFS rates for CEF, EC/T, and AC/T are 90.1%, 89.5%, and 85.0%, respectively. There was more febrile neutropenia with CEF (22.3%) and EC/T (16.4%) compared with AC/T (4.8%), but more neuropathy with the last two regimens. CONCLUSION Three-weekly AC/T is significantly inferior to CEF or EC/T in terms of RFS. It is too early to detect any difference between CEF and dose-dense EC/T.
环磷酰胺、表柔比星和氟尿嘧啶(CEF)与多柔比星和环磷酰胺(AC)序贯紫杉醇(T)是早期乳腺癌患者常用的辅助治疗方案。在一项局部晚期乳腺癌患者的先前试验中,每 2 周给予 3 个月高剂量表柔比星和环磷酰胺(EC)(剂量密集型)与 CEF 等效。我们假设剂量密集型 EC 后 3 个月紫杉醇(EC/T)将优于 CEF 或 AC/T。
在乳房切除术或乳房切除术之后,年龄在 60 岁或以下且腋窝淋巴结阳性或高危淋巴结阴性的乳腺癌患者被随机分配接受 CEF、EC/T 或 AC/T 治疗 6 个月。本文报告了无复发生存(RFS)的中期分析,该分析计划在 227 例复发后进行。
共纳入 2104 例患者。中位随访时间为 30.4 个月。复发的风险比如下:AC/T 与 CEF 相比,1.49(95%CI,1.12 至 1.99),P =.005;AC/T 与 EC/T 相比,1.68(95%CI,1.25 至 2.27),P =.0006;EC/T 与 CEF 相比,0.89(95%CI,0.64 至 1.22),P =.46。CEF、EC/T 和 AC/T 的 3 年 RFS 率分别为 90.1%、89.5%和 85.0%。CEF(22.3%)和 EC/T(16.4%)的发热性中性粒细胞减少症发生率高于 AC/T(4.8%),但后两种方案的神经病变发生率更高。
与 CEF 或 EC/T 相比,三周一次的 AC/T 在 RFS 方面明显较差。CEF 和剂量密集型 EC/T 之间是否存在差异尚为时过早。