Table 1 |
|||||
|
First-generation phase III pure adjuvant studies of paclitaxel in breast cancer |
|||||
|
Study |
Patients |
Design |
Follow up (months) |
DFS |
OS |
|
|
|||||
|
CALGB 9344-INT 08 [14] |
3,121 |
AC × 4 versus AC × 4 → P × 4 |
69 |
65% versus 70% (5-year); HR = 0.83, P = 0.0023 |
77% versus 80% (5-year); HR = 0.82, P = 0.0064 |
|
NSABP B-28 [15] |
3,060 |
AC × 4 versus AC × 4 → P × 4 |
64.6 |
72% versus 76% (5-year); HR = 0.83, P = 0.006 |
85% versus 85% (5-year); HR = 0.93, P = 0.46 |
|
GEICAM 9906 [16] |
1,248 |
FEC × 6 versus FEC × 4 → wP × 8 |
66 |
72.1% versus 78.5% (5-year); HR = 0.74, P = 0.006 |
87.1% versus 89.9% (5-year); HR = 0.78, P = 0.109 |
|
HeCOG 10/97 [17] |
604 |
E × 4 → CMF × 4 versus E × 3 → P × 3 → CMF × 3a |
62 |
68% versus 70% (5-year); P = 0.55 |
81% versus 84% (5-year); P = 0.38 |
|
NCIC CTG MA.21 [18] |
2,104 |
CEF versus AC → P versus dose-dense EC → P |
30.4 |
90.1% (CEF) versus 85% (AC → P) versus 89.5% (dose-dense EC → P) (3-year RFS) AC → P versus CEF: HR = 1.49, P = 0.005 AC → P versus dose-dense EC → P: HR = 1.68, P = 0.0006 Dose-dense EC → P versus CEF: HR = 0.89, P = 0.46 |
NA |
|
GONO-MIG5 [19] |
1,055 |
CEF × 6 versus ET × 4 |
98.4 |
71% versus 70% (5-year); P = 0.8 |
89% versus 88% (5-year); P = NS |
|
|
|||||
|
First-generation phase III pure adjuvant studies evaluating the role of paclitaxel in the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer. aSchedule every 2 weeks. →, followed by; DFS, disease-free survival; HR, hazard ratio; NS, not significant; OS, overall survival; A, doxorubicin; C, cyclophosphamide; E, epirubicin; F, 5-fluorouracil; P, paclitaxel; w, weekly; RFS, recurrence free survival. NA, not available. |
|||||
|
López-Tarruella and Martín Breast Cancer Research 2009 11:204 doi:10.1186/bcr2226 |
|||||