Docetaxel and doxorubicin compared with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide as first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer: results of a randomized, multicenter, phase III trial. Doxorubicin and paclitaxel versus fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide as first-line therapy for women with metastatic breast cancer: final results of a randomized phase III multicenter trial. Docetaxel vs 5-fluorouracil plus vinorelbine in metastatic breast cancer after anthracycline therapy failure. Docetaxel compared with sequential methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil in patients with advanced breast cancer after anthracycline failure: a randomised phase III study with crossover on progression by the Scandinavian Breast Group. Initial paclitaxel improves outcome compared with CMFP combination chemotherapy as front-line therapy in untreated metastatic breast cancer. Paclitaxel versus doxorubicin as first-line single-agent chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer: a European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Randomized Study with cross-over. Prospective randomized trial of docetaxel versus doxorubicin in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Phase III trial of doxorubicin, paclitaxel, and the combination of doxorubicin and paclitaxel as front-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer: an intergroup trial (E1193). Randomised, phase II trial comparing oral capecitabine (Xeloda) with paclitaxel in patients with metastatic/advanced breast cancer pretreated with anthracyclines. Doxorubicin and paclitaxel versus doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide as first-line chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer: The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 10961 Multicenter Phase III Trial. Prospective randomized trial of docetaxel versus mitomycin plus vinblastine in patients with metastatic breast cancer progressing despite previous anthracycline-containing chemotherapy. 304 Study Group.
This randomized, multicenter, phase III study compared doxorubicin and docetaxel (AT) with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) as first-line chemotherapy (CT) in metastatic breast cancer (MBC).
                Patients (n = 429) were randomly assigned to receive doxorubicin 50 mg/m(2) plus docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) (n = 214) or doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) plus cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2) (n = 215) on day 1, every 3 weeks for up to eight cycles.
                Time to progression (TTP; primary end point) and time to treatment failure (TTF) were significantly longer with AT than AC (median TTP, 37.3 v 31.9 weeks; log-rank P =.014; median TTF, 25.6 v 23.7 weeks; log-rank P =.048). The overall response rate (ORR) was significantly greater for patients taking AT (59%, with 10% complete response [CR], 49% partial response [PR]) than for those taking AC (47%, with 7% CR, 39% PR) (P =.009). The ORR was also higher with AT in patients with visceral involvement (58% v 41%; liver, 62% v 42%; lung, 58% v 35%), three or more organs involved (59% v 40%), or prior adjuvant CT (53% v 41%). Overall survival (OS) was comparable in both arms. Grade 3/4 neutropenia was frequent in both groups, although febrile neutropenia and infections were more frequent for patients taking AT (respectively, 33% v 10%, P <.001; 8% v 2%, P =.01). Severe nonhematologic toxicity was infrequent in both groups, including grade 3/4 cardiac events (AT, 3%; AC, 4%).
                AT significantly improves TTP and ORR compared with AC in patients with MBC, but there is no difference in OS. AT represents a valid option for the treatment of MBC. This phase III trial compared the efficacy and safety of doxorubicin and paclitaxel (AT) to 5-fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FAC) as first-line therapy for women with metastatic breast cancer.
                A total of 267 women with metastatic breast cancer were randomized to receive either AT (doxorubicin 50 mg/m(2) followed 24 hours later by paclitaxel 220 mg/m(2)) or FAC (5-fluorouracil 500 mg/m(2), doxorubicin 50 mg/m(2), cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m(2)), each administered every 3 weeks for up to eight cycles. Patients had to have measurable disease and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 2. Only one prior non-anthracycline, nontaxane-containing adjuvant chemotherapy regimen was allowed.
                Overall response rates for patients randomized to AT and FAC were 68% and 55%, respectively (P =.032). Median time to progression and overall survival were significantly longer for AT compared with FAC (time to progression 8.3 months v 6.2 months [P =.034]; overall survival 23.3 months v 18.3 months [P =.013]). Therapy was generally well-tolerated (median of eight cycles delivered in each arm). Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia was more common with AT than with FAC (89% v 65%; P <.001); however, the incidence of fever and infection was low. Grade 3 or 4 arthralgia and myalgia, peripheral neuropathy, and diarrhea were more common with AT, whereas nausea and vomiting were more common with FAC. The incidence of cardiotoxicity was low in both arms.
                AT conferred a significant advantage in response rate, time to progression, and overall survival compared with FAC. Treatment was well-tolerated with no unexpected toxicities. This multicentre, randomised phase III study compared docetaxel with 5-fluorouracil+vinorelbine in patients with metastatic breast cancer after failure of neo/adjuvant or one line of palliative anthracycline-based chemotherapy. One hundred and seventy-six metastatic breast cancer patients were randomised to receive docetaxel (100 mg m(-2)) every 3 weeks or 5-fluorouracil+vinorelbine: 5-fluorouracil (750 mg m(-2) per day continuous infusion) D1-5 plus vinorelbine (25 mg m(-2)) D1 and D5 of each 3-week cycle. Eighty-six patients received 516 cycles of docetaxel; 90 patients received 476 cycles of 5-fluorouracil+vinorelbine. Median time to progression (6.5 vs 5.1 months) and overall survival (16.0 vs 15.0 months) did not differ significantly between the docetaxel and 5-fluorouracil+vinorelbine arms, respectively. Six (7%) complete responses and 31 (36%) partial responses occurred with docetaxel (overall response rate 43%, 95% confidence interval: 32-53%), while 4 (4.4%) complete responses and 31 (34.4%) partial responses occurred with 5-fluorouracil+vinorelbine (overall response rate 38.8%, 95% confidence interval: 29-49%). Main grade 3-4 toxicities were (docetaxel vs 5-fluorouracil+vinorelbine): neutropenia 82% vs 67%; stomatitis 5% vs 40%; febrile neutropenia 13% vs 22%; and infection 2% vs 7%. There was one possible treatment-related death in the docetaxel arm and five with 5-fluorouracil+vinorelbine. In anthracycline-pretreated metastatic breast cancer patients, docetaxel showed comparable efficacy to 5-fluorouracil+vinorelbine, but was less toxic. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of docetaxel to methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil in advanced breast cancer after anthracycline failure. A randomised multicentre trial was conducted in 283 patients with advanced breast cancer who had failed previous anthracycline treatment. Docetaxel at a dose of 100 mg/m2 every 3 weeks (n = 143) was compared with sequential methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil (MF; n = 139) given at day 1 and 8 every 3 weeks at dosages of 200 mg/ m2 and 600 mg/m2, respectively. After progression, crossover to the alternative treatment group was recommended. There was a significantly higher overall response rate in the docetaxel 42% (CR 8% + PR 34%) than in the MF arm 21% (CR 3% + PR 18%) (P < 0.001). The median time to progression (TTP) was 6.3 months in the docetaxel arm and 3.0 months in the MF arm (P < 0.001). Docetaxel also had a significantly higher response rate of 27% following crossover compared with MF (12%). Significantly more side-effects (leucopenia, infections, neuropathy, oedema, asthenia, skin, nail changes, alopecia) were seen in the docetaxel than in the MF group. However, grade 3 and 4 side-effects were infrequent with both drugs, with the exception of fatigue, alopecia and infections. Median overall survival (OS) including crossover phase was 10.4 months in the docetaxel and 11.1 months in the MF arm (P = 0.79). Based on the response rate and the primary endpoint of TTP, docetaxel is superior to sequential methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil in advanced breast cancer after anthracycline failure. To determine the place of single-agent paclitaxel compared with nonanthracycline combination chemotherapy as front-line therapy in metastatic breast cancer.
                Patients with previously untreated metastatic breast cancer were randomized to receive either paclitaxel 200 mg/m(2) intravenously (IV) over 3 hours for eight cycles (24 weeks) or standard cyclophosphamide 100 mg/m(2)/d orally on days 1 to 14, methotrexate 40 mg/m(2) IV on days 1 and 8, fluorouracil 600 mg/m(2) IV on days 1 and 8, and prednisone 40 mg/m(2)/d orally on days 1 to 14 (CMFP) for six cycles (24 weeks) with epirubicin recommended as second-line therapy.
                A total of 209 eligible patients were randomized with a median survival duration of 17.3 months for paclitaxel and 13.9 months for CMFP. Multivariate analysis showed that patients who received paclitaxel survived significantly longer than those who received CMFP (P =.025). Paclitaxel produced significantly less severe leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, mucositis, documented infections (all P <.001), nausea or vomiting (P =.003), and fever without documented infection (P =.007), and less hospitalization for febrile neutropenia than did CMFP (P =.001). Alopecia, peripheral neuropathy, and myalgia or arthralgia were more severe with paclitaxel (all P <.0001). Overall, quality of life was similar for both treatments (P > = .07).
                Initial paclitaxel was associated with significantly less myelosuppression and fewer infections, with longer survival and similar quality of life and control of metastatic breast cancer compared with CMFP. To compare the efficacy of paclitaxel versus doxorubicin given as single agents in first-line therapy of advanced breast cancer (primary end point, progression-free survival ¿PFS) and to explore the degree of cross-resistance between the two agents.
                Three hundred thirty-one patients were randomized to receive either paclitaxel 200 mg/m(2), 3-hour infusion every 3 weeks, or doxorubicin 75 mg/m(2), intravenous bolus every 3 weeks. Seven courses were planned unless progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred before the seven courses were finished. Patients who progressed within the seven courses underwent early cross-over to the alternative drug, while a delayed cross-over was optional for the remainder of patients at the time of disease progression.
                Objective response in first-line therapy was significantly better (P =.003) for doxorubicin (response rate ¿RR, 41%) than for paclitaxel (RR, 25%), with doxorubicin achieving a longer median PFS (7.5 months for doxorubicin v 3.9 months for paclitaxel, P <.001). In second-line therapy, cross-over to doxorubicin (91 patients) and to paclitaxel (77 patients) gave response rates of 30% and 16%, respectively. The median survival durations of 18.3 months for doxorubicin and 15.6 months for paclitaxel were not significantly different (P =.38). The doxorubicin arm had greater toxicity, but this was counterbalanced by better symptom control.
                At the dosages and schedules used in the present study, doxorubicin achieves better disease and symptom control than paclitaxel in first-line treatment. Doxorubicin and paclitaxel are not totally cross-resistant, which supports further investigation of these drugs in combination or in sequence, both in advanced disease and in the adjuvant setting. This phase III study compared docetaxel and doxorubicin in patients with metastatic breast cancer who had received previous alkylating agent-containing chemotherapy.
                Patients were randomized to receive an intravenous infusion of docetaxel 100 mg/m(2) or doxorubicin 75 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks for a maximum of seven treatment cycles.
                A total of 326 patients were randomized, 165 to receive doxorubicin and 161 to receive docetaxel. Overall, docetaxel produced a significantly higher rate of objective response than did doxorubicin (47.8% v 33.3%; P =.008). Docetaxel was also significantly more active than doxorubicin in patients with negative prognostic factors, such as visceral metastases (objective response, 46% v 29%) and resistance to prior chemotherapy (47% v 25%). Median time to progression was longer in the docetaxel group (26 weeks v 21 weeks; difference not significant). Median overall survival was similar in the two groups (docetaxel, 15 months; doxorubicin, 14 months). There was one death due to infection in each group, and an additional four deaths due to cardiotoxicity in the doxorubicin group. Although neutropenia was similar in both groups, febrile neutropenia and severe infection occurred more frequently in the doxorubicin group. For severe nonhematologic toxicity, the incidences of cardiac toxicity, nausea, vomiting, and stomatitis were higher among patients receiving doxorubicin, whereas diarrhea, neuropathy, fluid retention, and skin and nail changes were higher among patients receiving docetaxel.
                The observed differences in activity and toxicity profiles provide a basis for therapy choice and confirms the rationale for combination studies in early breast cancer. Between February 1993 and September 1995, 739 patients with metastatic breast cancer were entered on an Intergroup trial (E1193) comparing doxorubicin (60 mg/m(2)), paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2)/24 h), and the combination of doxorubicin and paclitaxel (AT, 50 mg/m(2) and 150 mg/m(2)/24 h, plus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor 5 mg/kg) as first-line therapy. Patients receiving single-agent doxorubicin or paclitaxel were crossed over to the other agent at time of progression.
                Patients were well balanced for on-study characteristics.
                Responses (complete response and partial response) were seen in 36% of doxorubicin, 34% of paclitaxel, and 47% of AT patients (P =.84 for doxorubicin v paclitaxel, P =.007 for v AT, P =.004 for paclitaxel v AT). Median time to treatment failure (TTF) is 5.8, 6.0, and 8.0 months for doxorubicin, paclitaxel, and AT, respectively (P =.68 for doxorubicin v paclitaxel, P =.003 for doxorubicin v AT, P =.009 for paclitaxel v AT). Median survivals are 18.9 months for patients taking doxorubicin, 22.2 months for patients taking paclitaxel, and 22.0 months for patients taking AT (P = not significant). Responses were seen in 20% of patients crossing from doxorubicin --> paclitaxel and 22% of patients crossing from paclitaxel --> doxorubicin (P = not significant). Changes in global quality-of-life measurements from on-study to week 16 were similar in all three groups.
                (1) doxorubicin and paclitaxel, in the doses used here, have equivalent activity; (2) the combination of AT results in superior overall response rates and time to TTF; and (3) despite these results, combination therapy with AT did not improve either survival or quality of life compared to sequential single-agent therapy. Capecitabine, an oral fluoropyrimidine carbamate, was designed to generate 5-fluorouracil preferentially at the tumour site. This randomised, phase II trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of capecitabine or paclitaxel in patients with anthracycline-pretreated metastatic breast cancer. Outpatients with locally advanced and/or metastatic breast cancer whose disease was unresponsive or resistant to anthracycline therapy were randomised to 3-week cycles of intermittent oral capecitabine (1255 mg m(-2) twice daily, days 1-14, (22 patients)) or a reference arm of i.v. paclitaxel (175 mg m(-2), (20 patients)). Two additional patients were initially randomised to continuous capecitabine 666 mg m(-2) twice daily, but this arm was closed following selection of the intermittent schedule for further development. Overall response rate was 36% (95% CI 17-59%) with capecitabine (including three complete responses) and 26% (95% CI 9-51%) with paclitaxel (no complete responses). Median time to disease progression was similar in the two treatment groups (3.0 months with capecitabine, 3.1 months with paclitaxel), as was overall survival (7.6 and 9.4 months, respectively). Paclitaxel was associated with more alopecia, peripheral neuropathy, myalgia and neutropenia, whereas typical capecitabine-related adverse events were diarrhoea, vomiting and hand-foot syndrome. Twenty-three per cent of capecitabine-treated patients and 16% of paclitaxel-treated patients achieved a > or =10% improvement in Karnofsky Performance Status. Oral capecitabine is active in anthracycline-pretreated advanced/metastatic breast cancer and has a favourable safety profile. Furthermore, capecitabine provides a convenient, patient-orientated therapy.
                Copyright 2002 Cancer Research UK To compare the efficacy and tolerability of the combination of doxorubicin and paclitaxel (AT) with a standard doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) regimen as first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer.
                Eligible patients were anthracycline-naive and had bidimensionally measurable metastatic breast cancer. Two hundred seventy-five patients were randomly assigned to be treated with AT (doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) as an intravenous bolus plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) as a 3-hour infusion) or AC (doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) plus cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2)) every 3 weeks for a maximum of six cycles. A paclitaxel (200 mg/m(2)) and cyclophosphamide (750 mg/m(2)) dose escalation was planned at cycle 2 if no grade >or= 3 neutropenia occurred in cycle 1. The primary efficacy end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points were response rate (RR), safety, overall survival (OS), and quality of life.
                A median number of six cycles were delivered in the two treatment arms. The relative dose-intensity and delivered cumulative dose of doxorubicin were lower in the AT arm. Dose escalation was only possible in 17% and 20% of the AT and AC patients, respectively. Median PFS was 6 months in the two treatments arms. RR was 58% versus 54%, and median OS was 20.6 versus 20.5 months in the AT and AC arms, respectively. The AT regimen was characterized by a higher incidence of febrile neutropenia, 32% versus 9% in the AC arm.
                No differences in the efficacy study end points were observed between the two treatment arms. Treatment-related toxicity compromised doxorubicin-delivered dose-intensity in the paclitaxel-based regimen This phase III study compared docetaxel with mitomycin plus vinblastine (MV) in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) progressing despite previous anthracycline-containing chemotherapy.
                Patients (n=392) were randomized to receive either docetaxel 100 mg/m2 intravenously (i.v.) every 3 weeks (n=203) or mitomycin 12 mg/m2 i.v. every 6 weeks plus vinblastine 6 mg/m2 i.v. every 3 weeks (n=189), for a maximum of 10 3-week cycles.
                In an intention-to-treat analysis, docetaxel produced significantly higher response rates than MV overall (30.0% v 11.6%; P < .0001), as well as in patients with visceral involvement (30% v 11%), liver metastases (33% v 7%), or resistance to previous anthracycline agents (30% v 7%). Median time to progression (TTP) and overall survival were significantly longer with docetaxel than MV (19 v 1 weeks, P=.001, and 1 1.4 v 8.7 months, P=.0097, respectively). Neutropenia grade 3/4 was more frequent with docetaxel (93.1 % v62.5%; P < .05); thrombocytopenia grade 3/4 was more frequent with MV (12.0% v 4.1%; P < .05). Severe acute or chronic nonhematologic adverse events were infrequent in both groups. Withdrawal rates because of adverse events (MV, 10.1%; docetaxel, 13.8%) or toxic death (MV, 1.6%; docetaxel, 2.0%) were similar in both groups. Quality-of-life analysis was limited by a number of factors, but results were similar in both groups.
                Docetaxel is significantly superior to MV in terms of response, TTP, and survival. The safety profiles of both therapies are manageable and tolerable. Docetaxel represents a clear treatment option for patients with MBC progressing despite previous anthracycline-containing chemotherapy.
When all trials are considered, taxane-containing regimens appear to improve overall survival, time to progression and overall response in women with metastatic breast cancer. The degree of heterogeneity encountered indicates that taxane-containing regimens are more effective than some, but not all non-taxane-containing regimens.