4.5 Article

Phase II study of preoperative sequential FEC and docetaxel predicts of pathological response and disease free survival

期刊

BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT
卷 110, 期 3, 页码 531-539

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10549-007-9744-z

关键词

clinical trial; docetaxel; early stage breast cancer; FEC; preoperative chemotherapy; phase II

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose This multicenter phase II study examined the impact of pathological effect on survival after preoperative chemotherapy in Japanese women with early stage breast cancer. Patients and methods Prior to surgery, patients received four cycles of FEC (fluorouracil 500 mg/m(2), epirubicin 100 mg/m(2), cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m(2) q3w) followed by four cycles of docetaxel (75 mg/m(2) q3w). Primary endpoint was 3 year disease free survival (DFS) stratified by the absence or presence of Quasi-pCR (QpCR; absence of invasive tumor or only focal residual tumor cells). Secondary endpoints were predictors for QpCR, clinical response, breast conservation rate, and safety. Results Between June 2002 and June 2004, 202 women were enrolled. Among 191 assessable patients, 25% achieved QpCR. With 40 months median follow-up, 3 year DFS was estimated at 91% for all patients. 3 year DFS for patients with QpCR was 98% vs. 89% without QpCR (hazard ratio 0.38 [95% Confidence Interval 0.09-0.84], P = 0.0134). HER2 status and response to FEC were independent predictors of QpCR. The overall clinical response was 75%; 85% of patients achieved breast conservation. Grade 3/4 neutropenia was the most common adverse event, observed in 44% and 35% of patients during FEC and docetaxel, respectively. Treatment related side effects were manageable; there were no treatment related fatalities. Conclusion FEC followed by docetaxel is an active and manageable preoperative regimen for women with early stage breast cancer. QpCR following preoperative chemotherapy predicts favorable DFS. HER2 overexpression and clinical response to FEC predict QpCR.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据