4.7 Article

NEAT: National Epirubicin Adjuvant Trial - toxicity, delivered dose intensity and quality of life

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 99, 期 8, 页码 1226-1231

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6604674

关键词

NEAT; breast cancer; adjuvant chemotherapy toxicity; dose intensity; quality of life

类别

资金

  1. Clinical Trials Committee of the former Cancer Research Campaign (CRC)
  2. NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre
  3. National Institute for Health Research [NF-SI-0507-10244] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The NEAT trial reported considerable benefit for ECMF (epirubicin followed by cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil) of 28% for relapse-free survival (RFS) and 30% for overall survival (OS), when compared with classical CMF in early breast cancer. To assess tolerability, toxicity, dose intensity and quality of life (QoL) analyses were undertaken. All 2021 eligible patients had common toxicity criteria (CTC), delivered chemotherapy and supportive treatments details and long-term morbidities recorded. The QoL substudy used multiple validated measures. ECMF produced low CTC scores, although higher than CMF for nausea, vomiting, alopecia, constipation, stomatitis (P = 0.001), infection (P = 0.001) and fatigue (P=0.03). Supportive treatments required, however, were similar across randomised treatments. On-treatment deaths were more common with CMF (13) than ECMF(5). Optimal course-delivered dose intensity (CDDI >= 85%) was received more often by ECMF patients (83 vs 76%: P = 0.0002), and was associated with better RFS (P = 0.0006). QoL over 2 years was equivalent across treatments, despite minimally worse side effects for ECMF during treatment. ECMF benefit spanned all levels of toxicity, CDDI and QoL. There are no reported acute myeloid leukaemias or cardiac dysfunctions. ECMF is tolerable, deliverable, and significantly more effective than CMF, with no serious longterm toxicity or QoL detriment.

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

4.7
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