4.7 Article

A phase II trial of Neoadjuvant docetaxel and capecitabine for locally advanced breast cancer

Journal

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
Volume 10, Issue 20, Pages 6764-6769

Publisher

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-04-0976

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: This study evaluated the toxicity and efficacy of docetaxel/capecitabine as neoadjuvant treatment for stage 2/3 breast cancer. Experimental Design: Subjects with newly diagnosed invasive stage 2 and 3 breast cancer were eligible. The first cohort of patients was treated at dose A with neoadjuvant docetaxel (75 mg/m(2) i.v. day 1) and capecitabine (1000 mg/m(2) orally twice daily days 2-15) for four cycles. A second cohort of subjects was treated with a reduced dose, dose B, of docetaxel (60 mg/m(2) i.v. day 1) and capecitabine (937.5 mg/m(2) orally twice daily days 2-15). Results: Thirty patients were enrolled. Eight of 10 patients treated at dose A required dose reductions of either docetaxel or capecitabine secondary to grade 3 or 4 toxicities: mucositis (1), hand-foot syndrome (3), diarrhea (2), perirectal abscess (1), and neutropenia (2). Because of a high rate of dose reductions, the next 20 patients were treated at dose B. The mean cumulative administered dose of docetaxel was 285 and 231 mg/m(2) at dose A and dose B, respectively. For capecitabine, the mean cumulative dose at dose A and B were similar at 1585 and 1627 mg/m(2)/day, respectively. The overall clinical response rate was 90% with 31% of patients having a complete response and 59% having a partial response. A pathological complete response in the breast was achieved in 10% of patients after four cycles of docetaxel/capecitabine. Conclusions: Docetaxel/capecitabine is a highly active regimen in the neoadjuvant setting. Neoadjuvant therapy with 75 mg/m(2) docetaxel and 1600 mg/m(2)/day days 2-15 is recommended.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available