Duration of adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: a joint analysis of two randomised trials investigating three versus six courses of CMF
2002

Duration of Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer

Sample size: 1024 publication 10 minutes Evidence: high

Author Information

Author(s): Colleoni M, Litman H J, Castiglione-Gertsch M, Sauerbrei W, Gelber R D, Bonetti M, Coates A S, Schumacher M, Bastert G, Rudenstam C-M, Schmoor C, Lindtner J, Collins J, Thürlimann B, Holmberg S B, Crivellari D, Beyerle C, Neumann R L A, Goldhirsch A

Primary Institution: European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy

Hypothesis

Can three courses of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) be as effective as six courses for treating breast cancer?

Conclusion

Three cycles of CMF chemotherapy are as effective as six cycles for older patients with hormone-receptor-positive tumours, but six cycles may still be necessary for younger patients and those with hormone-receptor-negative tumours.

Supporting Evidence

  • Five-year disease-free survival rates were similar for both treatment groups.
  • Older patients with hormone-receptor-positive tumours showed no increased risk of relapse with three cycles.
  • Results suggested that younger patients may need longer treatment durations.

Takeaway

Doctors found that giving three doses of a certain cancer treatment is just as good as giving six doses for older women with specific types of breast cancer.

Methodology

A joint analysis of two randomized trials comparing three versus six cycles of CMF chemotherapy in breast cancer patients.

Potential Biases

Potential bias due to differences in trial designs and patient demographics.

Limitations

The results may not be applicable to younger patients or those with hormone-receptor-negative tumours due to small sample sizes in those subgroups.

Participant Demographics

Patients included pre- and perimenopausal women with node-positive breast cancer, with a median follow-up of 7.9 years.

Statistical Information

P-Value

0.99

Confidence Interval

0.85 to 1.18

Statistical Significance

p=0.99

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.1038/sj.bjc.6600334

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication