Increased intensification and total dose of cyclophosphamide in a doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide regimen for the treatment of primary breast cancer: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-22.

作者: B Fisher , S Anderson , D L Wickerham , A DeCillis , N Dimitrov

DOI: 10.1200/JCO.1997.15.5.1858

关键词: CarcinomaAdjuvantSurgeryDoxorubicinCyclophosphamideChemotherapyOncologyInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialRegimenMedicineNitrogen mustardCancer research

摘要: PURPOSE The National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) initiated a randomized trial (B-22) to determine if intensifying but maintaining the total dose of cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan, Bristol-Myers Squibb Oncology, Princeton, NJ) in a doxorubicin (Adriamycin, Pharmacia, Kalamazoo, MI)-cyclophosphamide combination (AC), or if intensifying and increasing the total dose of cyclophosphamide improves the outcome of women with primary breast cancer and positive axillary nodes. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients (N = 2,305) were randomized to receive either four courses of standard AC therapy (group 1); intensified therapy, in which the same total dose of cyclophosphamide was administered in two courses (group 2); or intensified and increased therapy, in which the total dose of cyclophosphamide was doubled (group 3). The dose and intensity of doxorubicin were similar in all groups. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival were determined using life-table estimates. RESULTS There was no significant difference in DFS (P = .30) or overall survival (P = .95) among the groups through 5 years. At 5 years, the DFS of women in group 1 was similar to that of women in group 2 (62% v 60%, respectively; P = .43) and to that of women in group 3 (62% v 64%, respectively; P = .59). The 5-year survival of women in group 1 was similar to that of women in group 2 (78% v 77%, respectively; P = .86) and to that of women in group 3 (78% v 77%, respectively; P = .82). Grade 4 toxicity increased in groups 2 and 3. Failure to note a difference in outcome among the groups was unrelated to either differences in amount and intensity of cyclophosphamide or to dose delays and intervals between courses of therapy. CONCLUSION Intensifying or intensifying and increasing the total dose of cyclophosphamide failed to significantly improve either DFS or overall survival in any group. It was concluded that, outside of a clinical trial, dose-intensification of cyclophosphamide in an AC combination represents inappropriate therapy for women with primary breast cancer.

参考文章(25)
W M Hryniuk, Average relative dose intensity and the impact on design of clinical trials. Seminars in Oncology. ,vol. 14, pp. 65- 74 ,(1987)
W Hryniuk, M N Levine, Analysis of dose intensity for adjuvant chemotherapy trials in stage II breast cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology. ,vol. 4, pp. 1162- 1170 ,(1986) , 10.1200/JCO.1986.4.8.1162
W Hryniuk, H Bush, The importance of dose intensity in chemotherapy of metastatic breast cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology. ,vol. 2, pp. 1281- 1288 ,(1984) , 10.1200/JCO.1984.2.11.1281
E Frei, K Antman, B Teicher, P Eder, L Schnipper, Bone marrow autotransplantation for solid tumors--prospects. Journal of Clinical Oncology. ,vol. 7, pp. 515- 526 ,(1989) , 10.1200/JCO.1989.7.4.515
Benjamin F. Hankey, Max H. Myers, Evaluating differences in survival between two groups of patients. Journal of Chronic Diseases. ,vol. 24, pp. 523- 531 ,(1971) , 10.1016/0021-9681(71)90041-5
L. Vahdat, K. Antman, High-dose Therapy for Breast Cancer☆ Blood Reviews. ,vol. 9, pp. 191- 200 ,(1995) , 10.1016/0268-960X(95)90025-X
Robert L. Souhami, Will increases in dose intensity improve outcome: Con The American Journal of Medicine. ,vol. 99, pp. 71- ,(1995) , 10.1016/S0002-9343(99)80294-0
Pierre L. Triozzi, Chris Rhoades, Donald E. Thornton, High-dose chemotherapy for breast cancer Cancer Treatment Reviews. ,vol. 21, pp. 185- 198 ,(1995) , 10.1016/0305-7372(95)90000-4
JA Lewis, D Machin, Intention to treat--who should use ITT? British Journal of Cancer. ,vol. 68, pp. 647- 650 ,(1993) , 10.1038/BJC.1993.402