Phase III Trial of Doxorubicin, Paclitaxel, and the Combination of Doxorubicin and Paclitaxel as Front-Line Chemotherapy for Metastatic Breast Cancer: An Intergroup Trial (E1193)

2003 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 588-592 ◽  
Author(s):  
George W. Sledge ◽  
Donna Neuberg ◽  
Patricia Bernardo ◽  
James N. Ingle ◽  
Silvana Martino ◽  
...  

Purpose: Between February 1993 and September 1995, 739 patients with metastatic breast cancer were entered on an Intergroup trial (E1193) comparing doxorubicin (60 mg/m2), paclitaxel (175 mg/m2/24 h), and the combination of doxorubicin and paclitaxel (AT, 50 mg/m2 and 150 mg/m2/24 h, plus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor 5 mg/kg) as first-line therapy. Patients receiving single-agent doxorubicin or paclitaxel were crossed over to the other agent at time of progression. Patients and Methods: Patients were well balanced for on-study characteristics. Results: Responses (complete response and partial response) were seen in 36% of doxorubicin, 34% of paclitaxel, and 47% of AT patients (P = .84 for doxorubicin v paclitaxel, P = .007 for v AT, P = .004 for paclitaxel v AT). Median time to treatment failure (TTF) is 5.8, 6.0, and 8.0 months for doxorubicin, paclitaxel, and AT, respectively (P = .68 for doxorubicin v paclitaxel, P = .003 for doxorubicin v AT, P = .009 for paclitaxel v AT). Median survivals are 18.9 months for patients taking doxorubicin, 22.2 months for patients taking paclitaxel, and 22.0 months for patients taking AT (P = not significant). Responses were seen in 20% of patients crossing from doxorubicin → paclitaxel and 22% of patients crossing from paclitaxel → doxorubicin (P = not significant). Changes in global quality-of-life measurements from on-study to week 16 were similar in all three groups. Conclusion: (1) doxorubicin and paclitaxel, in the doses used here, have equivalent activity; (2) the combination of AT results in superior overall response rates and time to TTF; and (3) despite these results, combination therapy with AT did not improve either survival or quality of life compared to sequential single-agent therapy.

2002 ◽  
Vol 20 (17) ◽  
pp. 3665-3673 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shanu Modi ◽  
Katherine S. Panageas ◽  
Elaine T. Duck ◽  
Ariadne Bach ◽  
Nancy Weinstock ◽  
...  

PURPOSE: To prospectively evaluate the association between tumor response, change in quality of life (QoL), and hospital expenditures in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) receiving single-agent paclitaxel. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had bidimensionally measurable MBC and any number of previous therapies, excluding taxane chemotherapy. Paclitaxel was administered by various different infusion schedules. QoL measures were evaluated for each patient at baseline and serially using the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (MSAS)-Global Distress Index (GDI) and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Breast (FACT-B) instruments. Patients were assessed for early (first 6 weeks) and ever changes in QoL parameters. Charges were monitored through the hospital’s centralized computer billing system and converted to cost ratios for the analysis. Correlations between response and improvement in QoL were assessed by Fisher’s exact test statistic. Associations between improvements in QoL with cost ratios were assessed by logistic regression and likewise between response and cost ratios. RESULTS: Of the 59 patients treated, 50 had sufficient data for comparative analyses. The overall response rate was 24% (all partial responses). Minor responses were observed in 17% of patients, 25% had stable disease, and 29% had progression. Responding patients had significant improvement in QoL as assessed by MSAS-GDI (P = .004) and FACT-B (P = .028). The mean total cost/month ratios for patients experiencing improved GDI QoL scores was 1.31 versus 1.56 for those without QoL benefit (P = .52) and 1.05 versus 1.76 for responders versus nonresponders, respectively (P = .07). CONCLUSION: Patients with evidence of tumor response on paclitaxel had a QoL benefit not observed in nonresponders, and this response was associated with a trend for lower overall costs.


2002 ◽  
Vol 20 (14) ◽  
pp. 3106-3113 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Osoba ◽  
Dennis J. Slamon ◽  
Michael Burchmore ◽  
Maureen Murphy

PURPOSE: The study was designed to compare the effects of treatment with a combination of trastuzumab (Herceptin; Genentech, Inc, South San Francisco, CA) and chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone on health-related quality of life (HRQL) in patients with HER-2/neu overexpressing, metastatic breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A sample of 400 patients, not previously treated for metastatic disease and randomized to receive either trastuzumab plus chemotherapy (208 patients) or chemotherapy alone (192 patients), completed the European Organization for Research and Treatment Care Quality of Life Questionnaire at baseline and on at least one subsequent occasion at 8, 20, 32, 44, and 56 weeks. HRQL improvement or worsening was defined as a ≥ 10-point change (range, 0 to 100 points) in the scores of six preselected domains (global quality of life [QOL], physical, role, social, and emotional functioning, and fatigue). Stable HRQL was defined as a change of less than 10. A Bonferroni correction was applied for multiple testing. RESULTS: After completion of chemotherapy, patients treated with trastuzumab and chemotherapy reported significant improvement in fatigue (P < .05) as compared with their baseline scores. Higher proportions of patients receiving the combined therapy achieved improvement in global QOL (P < .05) than did patients treated with chemotherapy alone. Higher proportions of the combined therapy group also achieved improvement in physical and role functioning and in fatigue as compared with the chemotherapy group, but the differences were not statistically significant. There were no differences in the proportions of patients in the two groups that reported worsening. CONCLUSION: Statistically significantly higher proportions of patients treated with a combination of trastuzumab and chemotherapy reported improved global QOL than did patients treated by chemotherapy alone.


2011 ◽  
Vol 22 (12) ◽  
pp. 2582-2590 ◽  
Author(s):  
Y. Wu ◽  
M.M. Amonkar ◽  
B.H. Sherrill ◽  
J. O’Shaughnessy ◽  
C. Ellis ◽  
...  

2005 ◽  
Vol 23 (24) ◽  
pp. 5542-5551 ◽  
Author(s):  
S.E. Jones ◽  
J. Erban ◽  
B. Overmoyer ◽  
G.T. Budd ◽  
L. Hutchins ◽  
...  

PurposeThis randomized, controlled, multicenter, open-label, phase III study compared docetaxel versus paclitaxel in patients with advanced breast cancer that had progressed after an anthracycline-containing chemotherapy regimen.Patients and MethodsPatients (n = 449) were randomly assigned to receive either docetaxel 100 mg/m2(n = 225) or paclitaxel 175 mg/m2(n = 224) on day 1, every 21 days until tumor progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent.ResultsIn the intent-to-treat population, both the median overall survival (OS, 15.4 v 12.7 months; hazard ratio [HR], 1.41; 95% CI, 1.15 to 1.73; P = .03) and the median time to progression (TTP, 5.7 months v 3.6 months; HR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.33 to 2.02; P < .0001) for docetaxel were significantly longer than for paclitaxel, and the overall response rate (ORR, 32% v 25%; P = .10) was higher for docetaxel. These results were confirmed by multivariate analyses. The incidence of treatment-related hematologic and nonhematologic toxicities was greater for docetaxel than for paclitaxel; however, quality-of-life scores were not statistically different between treatment groups over time.ConclusionDocetaxel was superior to paclitaxel in terms of OS and TTP. ORR was higher for docetaxel. Hematologic and nonhematologic toxicities occurred more frequently in the docetaxel group. The global quality-of-life scores were similar for both agents over time.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document