Randomized trial of 3 different regimens of combination chemotherapy in patients receiving simultaneously a hormonal treatment for advanced breast cancer. A new six-drug antiblastic regimen (R 14) at low doses (micropolychemotherapy) compared to CMF in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer: phase III study. 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). A comparison of cyclophosphamide, adriamycin, 5-fluorouracil (CAF) and cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil, vincristine, prednisone (CMFVP) in patients with metastatic breast cancer: a Southeastern Cancer Study Group project. 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. Combination chemotherapy with cmf (cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, 5-Fluorouracil) versus cnf (mitoxantrone, 5-Fluorouracil, cyclophosphamide) in advanced breast-cancer - a multicenter randomized study. Chemotherapy of advanced breast cancer: a randomized trial of vincristine, Adriamycin, and cyclophosphamide (VAC) versus cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil, and prednisone (CMFP). Chemotherapy of advanced breast cancer. Results of a controlled trial comparing two three-drug regimens. A comparison of intermittent vs. continuous and of adriamycin vs. methotrexate 5-drug chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer. A Cancer and Leukemia Group B study. Combination or mild single agent chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer? CMF vs epirubicin measuring quality of life. Long-term survival of patients treated with combination chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. A phase III clinical trial comparing the combination cyclophosphamide, adriamycin, cisplatin with cyclophosphamide, 5-fluorouracil, prednisone in patients with advanced breast cancer. Low dose chemotherapy of metastatic breast cancer with cyclophosphamide, adriamycin, methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil (CAMF) versus sequential cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil (CMF) and adriamycin. Chemotherapy versus chemoimmunotherapy (CAF v CAFVP v CMF each +/- MER) for metastatic carcinoma of the breast: a CALGB study. Cancer and Leukemia Group B. Comparison of CAF versus CMFP in metastatic breast cancer: analysis of prognostic factors. A randomized trial of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone versus cyclophosphamide, 5-fluorouracil, and prednisone in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Response and survival in advanced breast cancer after two non-cross-resistant combinations. Doxorubicin versus methotrexate both combined with cyclophosphamide, 5-fluorouracil and tamoxifen in postmenopausal patients with advanced breast cancer--a randomised study with more than 10 years follow-up from the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group. Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group (DBCG). Comparison of induction chemotherapies for metastatic breast cancer. An Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Trial. Improving the quality of life during chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer. A comparison of intermittent and continuous treatment strategies. Cyclophosphamide, adriamycin and platinum (CAP) combination chemotherapy, a new effective approach in the treatment of disseminated breast cancer. Preliminary report. Controlled evaluation of adriamycin (NSC-123127) in patients with disseminated breast cancer. Adriamycin versus methotrexate in five-drug combination chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer: a randomized trial. Mitoxantrone, 5-fluorouracil, and high dose leucovorin (NFL) versus intravenous cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and 5-fluorouracil (CMF) in first-line chemotherapy for patients with metastatic breast carcinoma: a randomized phase II trial. Combination chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer: comparison of multiple drug therapy with 5-fluorouracil, cytoxan and prednisone with adriamycin or adrenalectomy. Comparison of four-combination chemotherapy programs in metastatic breast cancer: comparison of multiple drug therapy with cytoxan, 5-FU and prednisone versus cytoxan and adriamycin, versus cytoxan, 5-FU and adriamycin, versus cytoxan, 5-FU and prednisone alternating with cytoxan and adriamycin. Combination chemotherapy and adriamycin in patients with advanced breast cancer. A Southwest Oncology Group study. Randomized trial to compare the efficacy and toxicity of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil (CMF) with methotrexate mitoxantrone (MM) in advanced carcinoma of the breast. A randomized study of intensive versus moderate chemotherapy programs in metastatic breast cancer. Dose-intensive epirubicin-based chemotherapy is superior to an intensive intravenous cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil regimen in metastatic breast cancer: a randomized multinational study.
We report the results of a randomized trial carried out by the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK) and in which 230 patients with advanced breast cancer receiving concurrently a hormonal treatment (oophorectomy for pre- and tamoxifen for postmenopausal women) were randomly allocated to three different regimens of combination chemotherapy. The therapeutic results registered with the two more intensive combinations (LMP/FVP and LMFP/ADM) were similar with regard to response rates, time to progression and survival. The patients receiving the low-dose chemotherapy lmfp showed a statistically significant lower response rate (32%, P less than 0.001) and a shorter survival (P = 0.03) than the results observed in patients treated with the two other regimens. This difference was particularly pronounced, at least regarding survival, in the following subgroups: postmenopausal women, patients with a poor performance status, dominant visceral lesions, two sites of disease and a disease-free interval longer than 12 months. Patients with bony metastases as dominant lesion fared similarly with all three regimens of chemotherapy. This latter subset of advanced breast cancer patients should probably be spared too intensive cytotoxic treatment. This is, to our knowledge, the first report of a randomized trial showing an evident correlation between response rate and survival in various subgroups of patients with advanced breast cancer treated with different chemotherapeutic regimens. Two groups of 23 patients each, having advanced breast cancer, entered this prospective and randomized study. One group was treated with the conventional schedule of CMF (cyclophosphamide 100 mg/m2/po from the first to the 14th day, methotrexate 40 mg/m2/iv the first and the 8th day, 5-fluorouracil 600 mg/m2/iv the first and the 8th day), and the other was treated with a new six-drug regimen, administered at low doses (R 14: cyclophosphamide 2 mg/kg/iv, vincristine 0.01 mg/kg/iv, vinblastine 0.1 mg/kg/iv, the first day and 5-fluorouracil 5 mg/kg/iv, methotrexate 0.7 mg/kg/iv, adriamycin 0.5 mg/kg/iv the 2nd day every 21 days). The remission rate was 35% (8/23) and 39% (9/23) for CMF and R 14 respectively. The median duration of objective remission was 6 months for CMF and 5 months for R 14 regimen. The median survival time of responding patients was 18 months for CMF and 14 months for R 14. This study shows that the new six-drug regimen at low doses is effective (regarding subjective, objective response and survival rate), and its toxicity is no higher than that of CMF (the incidence of leukopenia was significantly lower during the first course). Therefore, R 14 should be considered an alternative regimen to CMF in the treatment of advanced and, possibly, early breast cancer. The advantages for using R 14 are: 1) it is less toxic (a single dose is a very small amount of medicine compared to what is usually administered), 2) an iv administration always follows a therapeutic program (while in a CMF schedule cyclophosphamide is self-administered by the patient). 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. In an ongoing prospective randomized study, 113 evaluable patients have received either a three-drug combination that included cyclophosphamide, Adriamycin and 5-fluorouracil (CAF) or a five-drug combination including cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil, vincristine and prednisone (CMFVP) given intermittently 1 week out of 4. Responses (64%), median duration of response (32 weeks), and median duration of disease control (32 weeks) achieved with CAF were superior to those achieved with CMFVP (37%, 22 weeks, 17 weeks, respectively). Morbidity secondary to CAF was significant, with nausea and vomiting, malaise, total alopecia, and granulocytopenia being the main features. 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. A multicentric randomized study was conducted to compare the CNF regimen (cyclophosphamide at 600 mg/m2/iv, mitoxantrone at 10 mg/m2/iv, 5-fluorouracil at 600 mg/m2/iv) with the CMF regimen (methotrexate at 40 mg/m2/iv instead of mitoxantrone) administered every 3 weeks to previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer patients. In 119 patients evaluable for therapeutic response, complete plus partial response rate was 44% for CNF and 29% for CMF (p>0.05; 95% C.I.: CNF=32%-56%, CMF=18%-40%). No statistically significant difference regarding time to progression, over survival or response to second-line chemotherapy with Epidoxorubicin was observed between the two regimens. Both regimens were well tolerated, but the percent of alopecia and leucopenia was significantly higher in the CNF patient group (31% versus 5% and 18% versus 0%, respectively; p<0.01). In conclusion, CNF was demonstrated to be slightly more toxic but more effective as compared to CMF (global response: 44% versus 29%, respectively). These findings should be taken into consideration when planning future studies of adjuvant chemotherapy. Fifty-one patients with metastatic breast cancer were randomly allocated to receive either a four drug combination consisting of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil, and prednisone (CMFP), or a combination of vincristine, Adriamycin, and cyclophosphamide (VAC) with cross-over on relapse. Objective responses were seen in 17 of 26 patients (65%) in the CMFP group and in 14 of 25 patients (56%) in the VAC group, but this difference was not statistically significant. The median duration of response for each group was one year. The estimated median survival was greater for the CMFP group, but this was not significant. Toxicity was more severe with the VAC regimen. It is concluded that there is no therapeutic advantage of the VAC over the CMFP regimen. nan The therapeutic effectiveness of intermittent vs. continuous combination chemotherapy and of the substitution of adriamycin for methotrexate in a 5-drug regimen was evaluated in women with metastatic breast carcinoma. Patients were randomly allocated to receive continuous therapy with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil, vincristine, prednisone ( CMFVP -C, 86 patients), intermittent CMFVP ( CMFVP -I, 109 patients), or intermittent CAFVP (107 patients). The CR + PR rate with CAFVP (71%) was superior to CMFVP -C (50%, p = 0.003) and to CMFVP -I (50%, p = 0.002). The remission duration with CAFVP (14 months, median) was superior to CMFVP -I (7 months) (p less than 0.01), and tended to be superior to CMFVP -C (9 months) (p = 0.07). There was a survival advantage of CAFVP (19 months, median) over CMFVP -I (13 months) (p = 0.01), but not over CMFVP -C (16 months) (p = 0.24). Among CR + PR patients, the survival with CAFVP (29 months, median) was superior (p = 0.02) to both CMFVP -I (18 months) and CMFVP -C (21 months). The CMFVP -C regimen was associated with the highest incidence of leukopenia and neurologic toxicity, but the lowest incidence of GI toxicity. The results indicate that the CAFVP regimen is well tolerated and is superior to the CMFVP regimens. Forty patients with advanced breast cancer, randomised to receive CMF or weekly low dose Epirubicin, were evaluated by UICC criteria of response and WHO toxicity criteria, in addition to three QoL instruments: the 'Qualitator' daily diary card, 4 weekly Nottingham Health Profile (NHP) and Linear Analogue Self-Assessment (LASA). Response rates were 58% for CMF and 29% for epirubicin (chi 2 = 3.51, 1 d.f., P > 0.05). Median time to treatment failure was 24 weeks for CMF, 7 weeks for epirubicin (P < 0.05) but survival was similar in both groups. Survival was better for responders than for non-responders (medians 87 and 30 weeks, P = 0.02). CMF caused more objective alopecia (P < 0.001), nausea and vomiting (P < 0.001) and haematological toxicity (P < 0.02). However, QoL measures only recorded a significant difference in energy and pain, influenced primarily by the non-responders in each treatment group but with no difference in overall global scores. Scores for responders, irrespective of treatment, were better to start with (LASA P = 0.001); at 12 weeks, scores had improved (Qualitator P < 0.05; NHP P < 0.05). Scores in non-responders showed no change. In this small study aggressive chemotherapy gave better response and similar survival without impairing Quality of life overall. Detailed QoL measurement should be integral to all cancer chemotherapy trials. Long-term survival of patients with metastatic breast cancer treated on two prospective stratified randomised trials has been analysed. Patients on study B122 received either cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil (CMF) or cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin and 5-fluorouracil (CAF). On study B141 patients received CAF or mitolactol (dibromodulcitol), doxorubicin and vincristine alternating after every three cycles with three cycles of CMF (DAV/CMF). Long-term follow-up of 172 patients showed no significant survival difference (in multivariate regression models) for treatment with either CMF vs. CAF or CAF vs. DAV/CMF. The difference in median survival times between CMF and CAF showed a trend in favour of CAF. Advances in the management of metastatic breast cancer in postmenopausal women obtained by doxorubicin regimens have had a small but measurable impact on survival, but known patient discriminants were not overridden by the treatment regimens investigated in these studies. We assessed the efficacy of a regimen consisting of four cycles of cyclophosphamide, Adriamycin (Adria Laboratories, Inc, Columbus, Ohio), cisplatin (CAP) followed by maintenance with cyclophosphamide, 5-fluorouracil, prednisone (CFP) compared with CFP alone in a randomized trial of 86 patients with advanced breast cancer. The objective regression rates were 46% (CFP) and 49% (CAP with CFP) which included complete regression rates of 7% (CFP) and 4% (CAP with CFP). The median time to progression was nine months for CFP and six months for CAP with CFP. Median survival in the CFP group was 18 months v 11 months in the CAP recipients. Due to the therapeutic trend in favor of patients receiving CFP, we terminated the study before achieving our initially projected accrual. We observed over a twofold excess of substantial nausea and vomiting among patients receiving the platinum-based regimen. In our view, the CAP followed by the CFP regimen is a more toxic program that offers no clinically meaningful improvement over CFP to patients with advanced breast cancer. Seventy-eight advanced breast cancer patients with hormone-resistant disease or visceral metastases were randomized to receive either of two low dose regimens consisting of cyclophosphamide (C), methotrexate (M), 5-fluorouracil (F), and Adriamycin (A) as their initial chemotherapy. One group was treated with CAMF, and the other with CMF until progression, followed by A (CMF leads to A). C was given at 50 mg/m2, po, days 1-14; M at 20 mg/m2, F at 300 mg/m2, and A at 20 mg/m2, iv, days 1 and 8 of each 28-day cycle. The response rates for CAMF vs. CMF did not differ significantly (complete and partial responses-62% vs. 49%; stabilizations-23% vs. 31%). Responses by site of metasis, median times to progression and median survivals were similar for both groups. Poor and good risk partial responders had similar survivals. Twelve percent of CMF patients treated with Adriamycin at the time of progression had partial responses with an associated improved survival. Since CMF is as effective as CAMF, but has less toxicity, low dose therapy with CMF is more acceptable than CAMF as an initial chemotherapy regimen for metastatic breast cancer. Adriamycin may be reserved for subsequent regression induction. Three combination chemotherapy regimens each with or without the methanol-extracted residue of bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) (MER) were compared for efficacy. After stratification for disease-free interval and dominant sites of disease, patients were randomized to either CMF (cyclophosphamide [CYC], 100 mg/m2 orally, days 1 through 14; methotrexate [MTX], 40 mg intravenously [IV], days 1 and 8; 5-fluorouracil [5-FU], 500 mg/m2 IV, days 1 and 8), or CAF (CYC, 100 mg/m2 orally, days 1 through 14; doxorubicin [DOX], 25 mg/m2 IV, days 1 and 8; 5-FU, 500 mg/m2 IV, days 1 and 8), or CAFVP (CAF as above plus vincristine [VCR], 1.0 mg/m2 IV, days 1 and 8; and prednisone [PRED], 40 mg/m2 orally, days 1 through 14). Nonspecific immunotherapy with MER was administered in five sites at 100 micrograms or at the lowest tenfold dilution that produced a 1-cm indurated lesion. A total of 432 patients were entered, but 37 were disqualified, leaving 395 evaluable for treatment results and toxicities. One hundred thirty-five evaluable patients were randomized to chemoimmunotherapy until October 28, 1978. One hundred twenty-six evaluable patients were randomized to chemotherapy alone in the same time period. For the entire study, a total of 260 evaluable patients were randomized to chemotherapy. Chemoimmunotherapy patients were compared with the initial 126 chemotherapy patients. Chemotherapy regimens were compared among all 260 patients. Patient characteristics were similar between regimens and between chemotherapy and chemoimmunotherapy treatment groups. For patients on chemotherapy plus MER, there was no significant differences between the regimens for response frequencies: 43%, 41%, and 32%, respectively for CMF, CAF, and CAFVP. The comparable chemotherapy alone group had 36%, 58%, and 63% response, respectively. The response rates, adjusted for chemotherapy regimen, were 52% and 38% (P = .02) for chemotherapy and chemoimmunotherapy, respectively. MER was associated with painful ulcers and fevers. Thus, MER produced toxicity without response or survival benefit and further randomization after October 28, 1978 was to chemotherapy alone. For 260 evaluable patients on chemotherapy alone, the complete (CR) and partial responses (PR) were 37%, 55%, and 58%, respectively for CMF, CAF, and CAFVP. These response rates for CAF and CAFVP were significantly better than CMF (P = .01 and P less than .01, respectively). These comparisons were consistent within subgroupings such as dominant sites of disease.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS) One hundred fifty-five eligible women with metastatic breast cancer were randomly allocated to receive monthly cycles of either CMFP (cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil, prednisone) or CAF (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, 5-fluorouracil), and 12 patients were studied to evaluate the effects of additional Corynebacterium parvum immunotherapy. Overall response rates of 53% were seen with CMFP and CAF. CAF was associated with significantly more complete responses than CMFP (17% v 5%). However, CAF therapy was administered for eight months and CMFP for six months. Only 13% of the CAF patients had a complete response during the first six months of chemotherapy, and this was not significantly different from the complete response rate on CMFP. The median response durations (CMFP, 6.3 months; CAF, 11.0 months), times to treatment failure (CMFP, 5.7 months; CAF, 7.8 months), and survival times (CMFP, 15.8 months; CAF, 18.6 months) were not statistically different. Other investigators who have compared CAF to CMF-containing regimens have reported a large advantage in CAF therapy among patients with "good risk" sites of metastases (local-regional recurrence, bone, lung nodules). Such a finding was not confirmed by our study: in multivariate analyses the groups associated with an advantage for CAF tended to have a poorer prognosis than the groups associated with an advantage for CMFP. There was significantly more nausea and vomiting after CAF treatment, and CMFP treatment was associated with significantly more edema, Cushingoid features, fever, and eye symptoms. Ninety-four patients were entered in a clinical trial assessing the clinical activity of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (CAP) versus a combination of cyclophosphamide. 5-Fluorouracil, and prednisone (CFP) in patients with advanced breast cancer. Objective response rates were comparable, 49% for CFP and 46% for CAP. There was no statistical difference between the duration of response of the two regimens or in time to progression. Most importantly, survival differences were not apparent. Both regimens were clinically tolerable and toxicities, for the most part, were comparable. Thus, no therapeutic advantage existed for either of these polychemotherapy regimens in patients with advanced breast cancer. A prospective study with two cytotoxic combinations (cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF), and adriamycin plus vincristine (AV)) was carried out in 110 patients with advanced breast cancer. There was no significant difference between the treatment groups in the response rate after primary treatment, the median duration of response, and the median survival. In both groups responders survived for longer than non-responders. Secondary treatment after crossover for progression or relapse resulted in response rates of 35% for AV and 20% for CMF. Toxicity was mainly represented by reversible haemosuppression. These results are comparable with those obtained with other multiple-drug regimens, and combination chemotherapy alone seems to have reached a plateau in its capacity to control disseminated breast cancer. To evaluate the substitution of methotrexate with doxorubicin (Dox) in CMF-(cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil) containing regimen for advanced breast cancer, 415 postmenopausal patients below the age of 66 years, naïve to chemotherapy, were accrued from 1980 to 1984 and followed-up until 1995. They received tamoxifen 30 mg daily orally and by randomisation either 400 mg/m2, cyclophosphamide, 25 mg/m2 doxorubicin and 500 mg/m2 5-fluorouracil (CAF) or 40 mg/m2 methotrexate instead of Dox (CMF) intravenously (i.v.) days 1 + 8 repeated every 4 weeks. Dox was substituted by methotrexate at a cumulative dose of 550 mg/m2. Among 341 eligible patients the response rate and median time to progression was significantly in favour of CAF: 53% CAF versus 36% CMF (P = 0.002) and 11.8 months CAF versus 6.5 months CMF (P = 0.001). Median duration of response was 19.5 CAF versus 18.0 CMF months, and survival 20.8 CAF versus 17.4 CMF months (non-significant). The two regimens were equimyelotoxic. There were no treatment-related fatalities but 1 patient with congestive heart failure on CAF was reported. Nausea/vomiting, stomatitis and infections were modest in both groups, whilst alopecia was more common with CAF. Regression analysis showed that long recurrence free interval, good performance status, and no visceral involvement was significantly related to long-term survival, whilst the treatment regimen was not. It is concluded that in chemotherapy-naïve patients with advanced breast cancer Dox-containing regimens are superior and remain the first choice of chemotherapy, especially in patients with visceral metastases, until newer drugs and combinations have been proven to be superior. Patients with advanced breast carcinoma and no prior chemotherapy were prospectively evaluated to assess the induction capabilities of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil (CMF), Adriamycin and vincristine (AV), and CMF plus prednisone (CMFP). The crossover responsiveness from CMF or CMFP to AV and of AV to CMF were also assessed. A disproportionate randomization led to 166 analyzable cases on AV, 79 on CMF were also assessed. A disproportionate randomization led to 166 analyzable cases on AV, 79 on CMF and 86 on CMFP induction. One hundred and twelve patients were evaluated on crossover. Induction response rates were similar with 56% on AV, 57% on CMF and 63% on CMFP. Crossover response rates ranged from 32% to 41%. CMFP and AV were superior to CMF in terms of response duration (P = 0.05), and CMFP was superior to either in terms of time to treatment failure (P = 0.04), and survival (P = 0.03). Treatment failures occurred in only the on-study organ sites of disease in 73% of the patients and did not appear to be related to the response achieved. CMF was associated with more thrombocytopenia than either AV or CMFP (P = 0.03). AV was associated with fewer infections than CMFP (P = 0.02), less diarrhea than CMFP (P = 0.04), more emesis than CMF (P = 0.02), and more neurologic toxicity than either CMF or CMFP (P less than 0.0001). There was also more emesis with CMF than with CMFP (P = 0.006). CMFP was associated with greater delivery of CMF than was the CMF regimen despite a similar day 1 leukocyte distribution. These results strongly suggest that CMF(P) and AV are clinically noncross-resistant regimens, that AV and CMF are essentially equivalently active induction regimens, and that CMFP is superior to CMF and AV. Since chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer is not curative, consideration of the quality of life is important in selecting a treatment regimen. We conducted a randomized trial comparing continuous chemotherapy, administered until disease progression was evident, with intermittent therapy, whereby treatment was stopped after three cycles and then repeated for three more cycles only when there was evidence of disease progression. Each approach was tested with doxorubicin combined with cyclophosphamide or with cyclophosphamide combined with methotrexate, fluorouracil, and prednisone. Intermittent therapy resulted in a significantly worse response (P = 0.02 by Mann-Whitney test), a significantly shorter time to disease progression (relative risk based on proportional-hazards model, 1.8; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.4 to 2.4), and a trend toward shorter survival (relative risk, 1.3; confidence interval, 0.99 to 1.6). The quality of life was expressed as linear-analogue self-assessment scores for physical well-being, mood, pain, and appetite and as a quality-of-life index. It improved significantly during the first three cycles, when all patients received treatment. Thereafter, intermittent therapy was associated with worse scores for physical well-being (by 23 percent of scale; 95 percent confidence interval, 11 to 35 percent), mood (25 percent; 13 to 37 percent), and appetite (12 percent; 0 to 24 percent) and for the quality-of-life index as indicated by the patient (14 percent; 5 to 23 percent) and the physician (16 percent; 7 to 26 percent). Changes in the quality of life were independent prognostic factors in proportional-hazards models of subsequent survival. We conclude that, as tested, continuous chemotherapy is better than intermittent chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer. The prospective controlled Phase III clinical trial tested the therapeutic value of the cis-platinum-adriamycin-cyclophosphamide combination (CAP), compared with the combination including cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil, vincristine and prednisolone (CMFVP), in untreated metastatic breast cancer. One hundred and twenty-three patients (greater than 2 cycles) were evaluated: 61 on the CAP, and 62 on the CMFVP schedule. An objective response (CR + PR) to CAP combination chemotherapy was achieved in 72% of patients (43/61), with a high rate (36%) of complete remissions. In terms of metastatic site, the response rate appeared to be particularly high in soft tissue and visceral organ (lung, liver) metastases. In the CMFVP group, an objective response was noted in 26 of 62 patients (42%), with 16% complete remissions. The difference in overall therapeutic response - and in the complete remission rate as well - was statistically significant to the advantage of the CAP regimen (P less than 0.01). The duration of remissions was 6-28 + months (means = 14) for the CAP, and 4-15 + months (mean = 9) for the CMFVP schedule. Toxic side effects were more pronounced in the CAP group, particularly myelosuppression, with anemia prevailing. Side effects of CMFVP treatment were moderate. In 39 CMFVP previously treated cases, CAP was administered as second-line treatment, and an objective response was observed in 51% of cases (20/39). Results of this controlled trial showed the advantage of the CAP combination chemotherapy in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. nan Adriamycin is of noteworthy efficacy in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Its role in combination regimens is under investigation. One hundred seventy-five women with advanced breast cancer were entered into a prospectively randomized trial comparing two five-drug regimens. Regimen CMFVP consisted of cyclophosphamide (C), methotrexate (M), 5-fluorouracil (F), vincristine (V), and prednisone (P). Regimen CAFVP was identical but substituted Adriamycin (A) for methotrexate. Twenty-seven patients were disqualified; 148 were evaluable. With CMFVP the complete response rate (CR) was 11%, and the partial response rate (PR) was 46%; with CAFVP, CR was 13% and PR was 45%. Duration of response tended to be slightly longer for patients on the Adriamycin arm. The median survival for CR and PR patients with CMFVP was 20.2 months, which was shorter (p = .07) than the 33 month median survival with CAFVP. Although statistical significance was not reached at the 5% level, the increased survival of responders on the Adriamycin regimen supports the data of other studies which suggest that first line combination chemotherapy in advanced breast cancer should include Adriamycin. Previous Phase II studies using the combination of mitoxantrone, 5-fluorouracil, and high dose leucovorin (NFL) in the treatment of metastatic breast carcinoma have shown this regimen to be active and well tolerated. In this randomized Phase II study, the authors compared the NFL regimen with a standard CMF regimen in the first-line therapy of patients with metastatic breast carcinoma.
                One hundred twenty-eight women receiving their first chemotherapy for metastatic breast carcinoma were entered into this randomized study. Sixty-four patients were treated with NFL: mitoxantrone 12 mg/m2 IV on Day 1; leucovorin 300 mg IV over 30-60 minutes on Days 1, 2, and 3, immediately preceding administration of 5-fluorouracil; and 5-fluorouracil 350 mg/m2 IV bolus on Days 1, 2, and 3. Sixty-four patients received CMF: cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2 IV on Day 1; methotrexate 40 mg/m2 IV on Day 1; and 5-fluorouracil 600 mg/m2 IV on Day 1. Both regimens were repeated at 21-day intervals; responding patients received at least 8 courses.
                Patients treated with NFL had a higher response rate than patients treated with the CMF regimen (45% vs. 26%, respectively; P = 0.021). Median duration of response was 9 months with NFL and 6 months with CMF (P = 0.10); 11 patients had long responses (>12 months) with NFL versus 4 patients with CMF (P = 0.06). Median survival was similar for both groups. Both regimens were well tolerated, with infrequent Grade 3 or 4 toxicities.
                NFL is an active, well-tolerated regimen for the treatment of metastatic breast carcinoma; it produced a higher response rate than the CMF regimen used in this study. Although more intense CMF regimens or regimens containing doxorubicin would likely increase the response rate, they would almost certainly do so with the consequence of greater toxicity as compared with NFL. NFL is an excellent initial palliative treatment option for elderly patients or patients who have exhibited poor tolerance for other chemotherapy regimens. nan In 126 postmenopausal women with metastatic breast cancer, four chemotherapeutic combination programs were tested. Patients were stratified and randomized to one of the four programs: (1) fluorouracil, cytoxan and prednisone (CFP): (2) fluorouracil, cytoxan and Adriamycin (CAF); (3) cytoxan and Adriamycin (CA); or (4) alternating combinations of CFP-CA. Objective response rates were 17% for 18 patients on CFP, 25% for 40 patients on CAF, 42% for 41 patients on CA and 63% for 19 patients on CFP-CA. CFP-CA provided a significantly higher response rate than either CFP or CAF. The response rate of CA was intermediate. The duration of remission and survival were similar for all four groups. When progression or relapse following remission was demonstrated, patients were rerandomized to either adrenalectomy or tamoxifen. There were no responders either in the 15 patients undergoing adrenalectomy or the 11 patients receiving tamoxifen. In a crossover study, nine adrenalectomized patients received tamoxifen and four tamoxifen-treated patients underwent adrenalectomy. None responded. It appears that response rates to hormonal modalities are reduced in patients previously treated by combination chemotherapy. In January, 1972, the Southwest Oncology Group initiated two randomized studies for patients with advanced breast cancer. The study for patients with prior chemotherapy showed a 33% response rate with adriamycin. The study for patients without previous chemotherapy consisted of three treatment regimens; a weekly repeated combination of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil, vincristine, and prednisone; these same five drugs given in courses of 5 days repeated every 4 weeks; and adriamycin as a single agent every 3 weeks. For the 283 evaluable patients, the response rates were: weekly combination 63/106 (59%); intermittent combination 39/98 (40%); and adriamycin 31/79 (39%). The median duration of response was 8 months for weekly combination, 10 months for intermittent therapy and only 4 months for adriamycin. Leukopenia was the dose-limiting toxicity with all three regimens. The weekly combination is the most effective therapy for patients with advanced disease. Extensive trails of combinations that include adriamycin are underway. One hundred and sixteen patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer were randomized to receive CMF (cyclophosphamide 600 mg m(-2) day 1 and 8 i.v., 5-fluorouracil 600 mg m(-2) day 1 and 8 i.v., methotrexate 40 mg m(-2) day 1 and 8 i.v., monthly for 6 cycles) or MM (methotrexate 30 mg m(-2), mitoxantrone 6.5 mg m(-2), both i.v. day 1 3-weekly for 8 cycles) as first line treatment with chemotherapy. Objective responses occurred in 17 patients out of 58 (29%) who received CMF and nine out of 58 (15%) who received MM; 95% confidence interval for difference in response rates (-1%-29%), P = 0.07. No statistically significant differences were seen in overall survival or time to progression between the two regimes although a tendency towards a shorter progression time on the MM regime must be acknowledged. There was, however, significantly reduced haematological toxicity (P < 0.001) and alopecia (P < 0.001) and fewer dose reductions and delays in patients randomized to MM. No statistically significant differences were seen between the two regimes in terms of quality of life (QOL). However, some association between QOL and toxicity was apparent overall with pooled QOL estimates tending to indicate a worsening in psychological state with increasing maximum toxicity over treatment. Despite the fact that results surrounding response rates and time to progression did not reach statistical significance, their possible compatibility with an improved outcome on CMF treatment must be borne in mind. However, MM is a well-tolerated regimen with fewer side-effects than CMF, which with careful patient management and follow-up, therefore, may merit consideration as a first-line treatment to palliate patients with metastatic breast cancer who are infirm or elderly. Two intensive chemotherapy regimens CFPMV (Cytoxan [cyclophosphamide], 5-fluorouracil, prednisone, methotrexate, vincristine) and CA (Cytoxan, Adriamycin [doxorubicin]) were tested against a moderate regimen, CFP, in a prospective three-arm, randomized study with crossover when relapse or failure occurred, in order to assess whether the response, duration of remission, and survival can be altered by using more intensive regimens as first-line or as rescue therapy. All three regimens were equally effective as initial chemotherapy: CFP 26/46 (57%); CFPMV 31/48 (65%) and CA 26/47 (55%) (P = 0.61) with the least toxicity for the CFP regimen. Median duration of remission were 9.5, 11, and 9 months, respectively. Complete responses were almost identical in all three regimens: 4/46 (9%); 6/48 (12%) and 5/47 (11%) (P = 0.94). CFPMV was an effective regimen as second-line therapy: 11/33 (33%) or third-line therapy: 7/21 (33%). The CA regimen was equally effective as second-line therapy: 8/25 (32%), suggesting that intensive regimens provide an effective rescue therapy, as well in previous responders as in nonresponders. Initial intensive regimens have not substantially altered long-term survival in the whole group of treated patients, Arm II (CFPMV----CA----CFP) 17.6 months; Arm III (CA----CFP----CFPMV) 12.3 months when compared with initial moderate regimens Arm I (CFP----CFPMV----CA) 16.6 months (P = 0.24). The same lack of difference in survival was noticed in responder patients in each arm: Arm II 19.0 months; Arm III 16.0 months versus Arm I 22.0 months (P = 0.13). Our data suggest that a moderate regimen is as effective as more intense regimens for induction therapy in metastatic breast cancer, with less toxicity, preserving the opportunity for an effective rescue therapy with intensive regimens in second or third-line chemotherapy. To determine the relative efficacy of a cyclophosphamide epirubicin and fluorouracil (CEF) regimen compared with an intravenous (IV) cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) combination in metastatic breast cancer.
                Patients were randomized to receive either CEF (cyclophosphamide 400 mg/m(2) IV, epirubicin 50 mg/m(2) IV, and fluorouracil 500 mg/m(2) IV on days 1 and 8), or CMF (cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m(2) IV, methotrexate 40 mg/m(2) IV, and fluorouracil 600 mg/m(2) IV on days 1 and 8). Treatment was given in 3- to 4-week cycles for a total of six to nine cycles.
                A total of 460 patients (223 CEF and 237 CMF) were randomized. Overall response rate was superior for CEF than CMF in all randomized patients (57% v 46%, respectively; P =.01) and in the assessable subset (66% v 52%, respectively; P =.005). With a median follow-up of more than 20 months, time to progression (TTP) was significantly longer with CEF than CMF (median 8.9 v 6.3 months, respectively; P =.0064), as was time to treatment failure (TTF) (median 6.2 v 5.0 months, respectively; P =.01). Significant survival differences were not observed between CEF and CMF (median 20.1 v 18.2 months, respectively; P =.23). Granulocytopenia and infections were similar in both arms. Grade 3/4 nausea/vomiting and alopecia were more frequent with CEF, whereas diarrhea was more frequent with CMF. Cardiac toxicity, primarily asymptomatic, required withdrawal from study of 15 patients on CEF (7%) and one patient on CMF.
                This CEF regimen safely provides significantly better tumor control than CMF, manifest as a higher response rate, and longer TTP and TTF, but not survival, when used as first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer.
Compared to regimens without antitumour antibiotics, regimens that contained these agents showed a statistically significant advantage for tumour response and time to progression in women with metastatic breast cancer but were not associated with an improvement in overall survival. The favourable effect on tumour response and time to progression observed in anthracycline containing regimens was also associated with greater toxicity.