Suppr超能文献

新辅助化疗与辅助化疗用于肿瘤较大不适宜保乳手术的绝经前患者:一项随机试验的初步结果:S6

Neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy in premenopausal patients with tumours considered too large for breast conserving surgery: preliminary results of a randomised trial: S6.

作者信息

Scholl S M, Fourquet A, Asselain B, Pierga J Y, Vilcoq J R, Durand J C, Dorval T, Palangié T, Jouve M, Beuzeboc P

机构信息

Département de Médecine, Institut Curie, Paris, France.

出版信息

Eur J Cancer. 1994;30A(5):645-52. doi: 10.1016/0959-8049(94)90537-1.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess a potential advantage in survival by neoadjuvant as compared to adjuvant chemotherapy. 414 premenopausal patients with T2-T3 N0-N1 M0 breast cancer were randomised to receive either four cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, 5-fluorouracil), followed by local-regional treatment (group I) or four cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy after primary irradiation +/- surgery (group II). Surgery was limited to those patients with a persisting mass after irradiation, and aimed to be as conservative as possible. 390 patients were evaluable. With a median follow-up of 54 months, we observed a statistically significant difference (P = 0.039) in survival in favour of the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group. A similar trend was seen when the time to metastatic recurrence was evaluated (P = 0.09). At this stage, no difference in disease-free interval or local recurrence between these two groups could be observed. The mean total dose of chemotherapy administered was similar in both groups. On average, group I had more intensive chemotherapy regimes (doxorubicin P = 0.02) but fewer treatment courses (P = 0.008) as compared to the treated patients in group II. Haematological tolerance was reduced when chemotherapy succeeded to exclusive irradiation. Breast conservation was identical for both groups at the end of primary treatment (82 and 77% for groups I and II, respectively). Of the 191 evaluable patients in the neoadjuvant treatment arm, 65% had an objective response (> 50% regression) following four cycles of chemotherapy. The objective response rate to primary irradiation (55 Gy) was 85%. Improved survival figures in the neoadjuvant treatment arm could be the result of the early initiation of chemotherapy, but we cannot exclude that this difference might be attributable to a slightly more aggressive treatment. So far, the trend in favour of decreased metastases was not statistically significant. The local control appeared similar in both subgroups.

摘要

本研究的目的是评估新辅助化疗与辅助化疗相比在生存方面的潜在优势。414例绝经前T2 - T3 N0 - N1 M0期乳腺癌患者被随机分为两组,一组接受四个周期的新辅助化疗(环磷酰胺、阿霉素、5 - 氟尿嘧啶),随后进行局部区域治疗(第一组);另一组在原发灶放疗+/-手术后接受四个周期的辅助化疗(第二组)。手术仅限于放疗后仍有肿块的患者,且旨在尽可能保守。390例患者可进行评估。中位随访54个月,我们观察到新辅助化疗组在生存方面有统计学显著差异(P = 0.039)。评估转移复发时间时也出现了类似趋势(P = 0.09)。在此阶段,两组之间无病间期或局部复发无差异。两组化疗的平均总剂量相似。平均而言,与第二组接受治疗的患者相比,第一组化疗方案强度更大(阿霉素P = 0.02),但疗程更少(P = 0.008)。当化疗继以单纯放疗时,血液学耐受性降低。在初始治疗结束时,两组的保乳率相同(第一组和第二组分别为82%和77%)。在新辅助治疗组的191例可评估患者中,65%在四个周期化疗后有客观缓解(> 50%缩小)。对原发灶放疗(55 Gy)的客观缓解率为85%。新辅助治疗组生存数据的改善可能是化疗早期开始的结果,但我们不能排除这种差异可能归因于治疗稍激进一些。到目前为止,有利于减少转移的趋势尚无统计学显著性。两个亚组的局部控制情况相似。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验