File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Phase 3 study comparing the use of docetaxel on an every-3-week versus weekly schedule in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer

TitlePhase 3 study comparing the use of docetaxel on an every-3-week versus weekly schedule in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer
Authors
KeywordsDocetaxel
Metastatic breast cancer
Response
Survival
Issue Date2008
PublisherJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc. The Journal's web site is located at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/28741
Citation
Cancer, 2008, v. 112 n. 7, p. 1455-1461 How to Cite?
AbstractBACKGROUND. Previous studies have evaluated 3-week and weekly docetaxel schedules in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). The varying efficacy results and toxicity profiles noted in these earlier studies led to a comparison of the schedules to determine which was safer and more efficacious. METHODS. A phase 3 clinical trial was conducted in patients with MBC who were treated with docetaxel either every 3 weeks or once weekly to determine and compare response rate and duration, time to disease progression, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity. Patients were randomized to receive docetaxel at a starting dose of either 75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks or 35 mg/m2 weekly for 3 consecutive weeks followed by 1 week of rest. RESULTS. A total of 118 patients underwent efficacy analysis; 59 patients were randomized to the every-3-week treatment arm and 59 to the weekly arm. The response rate was 35.6% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 23.6-49.1%) for the every-3-week arm versus 20.3% (95% CI, 11.0-32.8%) for the weekly arm. There was no statistical difference between the every 3-week and the weekly treatment arms with regard to median PFS (5.7 months vs 5.5 months; P = .46) or OS (18.3 months vs 18.6 months, respectively; P = .34). There was a higher overall toxicity rate (grades 3 and 4, according to the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria [version 2.0]) in the every-3-week treatment arm versus the weekly treatment arm (88.1% vs 55.9%, respectively; P = .0001). CONCLUSIONS. Compared with patients who received weekly docetaxel, those who received docetaxel every 3 weeks had a higher response rate but experienced similar PFS and OS and a more pronounced toxicity. © 2008 American Cancer Society.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/146586
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 5.649
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 3.188
ISI Accession Number ID
References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorRivera, Een_HK
dc.contributor.authorMejia, JAen_HK
dc.contributor.authorArun, BKen_HK
dc.contributor.authorAdinin, RBen_HK
dc.contributor.authorWalters, RSen_HK
dc.contributor.authorBrewster, Aen_HK
dc.contributor.authorBroglio, KRen_HK
dc.contributor.authorYin, Gen_HK
dc.contributor.authorEsmaeli, Ben_HK
dc.contributor.authorHortobagyi, GNen_HK
dc.contributor.authorValero, Ven_HK
dc.date.accessioned2012-05-02T08:37:13Z-
dc.date.available2012-05-02T08:37:13Z-
dc.date.issued2008en_HK
dc.identifier.citationCancer, 2008, v. 112 n. 7, p. 1455-1461en_HK
dc.identifier.issn0008-543Xen_HK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/146586-
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND. Previous studies have evaluated 3-week and weekly docetaxel schedules in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). The varying efficacy results and toxicity profiles noted in these earlier studies led to a comparison of the schedules to determine which was safer and more efficacious. METHODS. A phase 3 clinical trial was conducted in patients with MBC who were treated with docetaxel either every 3 weeks or once weekly to determine and compare response rate and duration, time to disease progression, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity. Patients were randomized to receive docetaxel at a starting dose of either 75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks or 35 mg/m2 weekly for 3 consecutive weeks followed by 1 week of rest. RESULTS. A total of 118 patients underwent efficacy analysis; 59 patients were randomized to the every-3-week treatment arm and 59 to the weekly arm. The response rate was 35.6% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 23.6-49.1%) for the every-3-week arm versus 20.3% (95% CI, 11.0-32.8%) for the weekly arm. There was no statistical difference between the every 3-week and the weekly treatment arms with regard to median PFS (5.7 months vs 5.5 months; P = .46) or OS (18.3 months vs 18.6 months, respectively; P = .34). There was a higher overall toxicity rate (grades 3 and 4, according to the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria [version 2.0]) in the every-3-week treatment arm versus the weekly treatment arm (88.1% vs 55.9%, respectively; P = .0001). CONCLUSIONS. Compared with patients who received weekly docetaxel, those who received docetaxel every 3 weeks had a higher response rate but experienced similar PFS and OS and a more pronounced toxicity. © 2008 American Cancer Society.en_HK
dc.languageengen_US
dc.publisherJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc. The Journal's web site is located at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/28741en_HK
dc.relation.ispartofCanceren_HK
dc.subjectDocetaxelen_HK
dc.subjectMetastatic breast canceren_HK
dc.subjectResponseen_HK
dc.subjectSurvivalen_HK
dc.subject.meshAdulten_US
dc.subject.meshAgeden_US
dc.subject.meshAged, 80 And Overen_US
dc.subject.meshAntineoplastic Agents - Administration & Dosageen_US
dc.subject.meshBreast Neoplasms - Drug Therapy - Mortalityen_US
dc.subject.meshChemotherapy, Adjuvanten_US
dc.subject.meshDisease-Free Survivalen_US
dc.subject.meshDrug Administration Scheduleen_US
dc.subject.meshFollow-Up Studiesen_US
dc.subject.meshHumansen_US
dc.subject.meshMiddle Ageden_US
dc.subject.meshPrognosisen_US
dc.subject.meshSurvival Rateen_US
dc.subject.meshTaxoids - Administration & Dosageen_US
dc.titlePhase 3 study comparing the use of docetaxel on an every-3-week versus weekly schedule in the treatment of metastatic breast canceren_HK
dc.typeArticleen_HK
dc.identifier.emailYin, G: gyin@hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.authorityYin, G=rp00831en_HK
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltexten_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/cncr.23321en_HK
dc.identifier.pmid18300256en_HK
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-41549156155en_HK
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-41549156155&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_HK
dc.identifier.volume112en_HK
dc.identifier.issue7en_HK
dc.identifier.spage1455en_HK
dc.identifier.epage1461en_HK
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000254317300005-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Statesen_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridRivera, E=7101648447en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridMejia, JA=14630495000en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridArun, BK=6603689664en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridAdinin, RB=16237860500en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridWalters, RS=7201891325en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridBrewster, A=7006836351en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridBroglio, KR=6602915196en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridYin, G=8725807500en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridEsmaeli, B=7004910000en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridHortobagyi, GN=7202399346en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridValero, V=7004692933en_HK
dc.identifier.citeulike7475748-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats