4.5 Article

Quality of life (QoL) in metastatic breast cancer patients with maintenance paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (PG) chemotherapy: results from phase III, multicenter, randomized trial of maintenance chemotherapy versus observation (KCSG-BR07-02)

Journal

BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT
Volume 152, Issue 1, Pages 77-85

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10549-015-3450-z

Keywords

Quality of life; Breast cancer; Chemotherapy; Paclitaxel; Gemcitabine

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The therapeutic goals are palliative for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) and include prolongation of survival with good quality of life (QoL) and symptom control. The purpose of this study was to examine QoL among women with MBC treated on KCSG-BR07-02 with maintenance of paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (PG) chemotherapy after achieving disease control to initial six cycles of PG chemotherapy or observation. Patients were randomized to either maintenance chemotherapy or observation until progression. QoL was assessed using EORTC QLQ-C30 and BR-23. QoL at each cycle was compared between the two treatment arms using the 2-sample t test. Generalized estimating equation method was used to examine the overall difference between the two treatments in QoL. All reported p-values are 2 sided. There were no statistically significant differences between two arms in most of the component of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and BR-23 (p > 0.05). There was no significant difference between two treatments (p = 0.6094 for QLQ-C30, p = 0.5516 for BR23) at baseline, and there did not exist significant change over the cycle (p = 0.0914 for QLQ-C30, p = 0.7981 for BR23). There was no significant interaction effect between treatment and cycle (p = 0.5543 for QLQ-C30. p = 0.5817 for BR23). Maintenance PG chemotherapy in patients with MBC achieving disease control with an initial six cycles of PG chemotherapy resulted in better PFS and OS compared to observation without impeding QoL.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available