Trial reportThe Lancet. Oncology2017
Accelerated versus standard epirubicin followed by cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil or capecitabine as adjuvant therapy for breast cancer in the randomised UK TACT2 trial (CRUK/05/19): a multicentre, phase 3, open-label, randomised, controlled trial.
Trial report in The Lancet. Oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
43 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 73 citations in OpenAlex.
- The reporting of health systems data use in primary results publications of clinical trials: a systematic review.Trials · 2025Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of dose-dense chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer under prophylactic pegfilgrastim administration: a systematic review and meta-analysis from clinical practice guidelines for the use of G-CSF 2022.International journal of clinical oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Capecitabine-based chemotherapy in early-stage triple-negative breast cancer: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Capecitabine for hormone receptor-positive versus hormone receptor-negative breast cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Quality of adverse event reporting in phase III randomized controlled trials of breast and colorectal cancer: A systematic review.Cancer medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Increasing the dose intensity of chemotherapy by more frequent administration or sequential scheduling: a patient-level meta-analysis of 37 298 women with early breast cancer in 26 randomised trials.Lancet (London, England) · 2019Pooled it
- Survival benefit of pure dose-dense chemotherapy in breast cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.World journal of surgical oncology · 2018Pooled it
- Tailored Dose-Dense Versus Standard Adjuvant Chemotherapy for High-Risk Early Breast Cancer: End-of-Study Results of the Randomized PANTHER Trial.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2024Trial
- A risk-based subgroup analysis of the effect of adjuvant S-1 in estrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative early breast cancer.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2023Trial
- Dose-dense sequential adjuvant chemotherapy in the trastuzumab era: final long-term results of the Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group Phase III HE10/05 Trial.British journal of cancer · 2022Trial
- Adjuvant Capecitabine for Early Breast Cancer: 15-Year Overall Survival Results From a Randomized Trial.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2022Trial
- Standard Anthracycline Based Versus Docetaxel-Capecitabine in Early High Clinical and/or Genomic Risk Breast Cancer in the EORTC 10041/BIG 3-04 MINDACT Phase III Trial.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2020Trial
- A Phase II Study to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of Pegteograstim in Korean Breast Cancer Patients Receiving Dose-Dense Doxorubicin/Cyclophosphamide.Cancer research and treatment · 2019Trial
- Comparison of chemotherapeutic combination therapy, dosing frequency and dosing sequence for the adjuvant treatment of early-stage breast cancer: a network meta-analysis.Annals of medicine · 2026Article
- Surgery-first versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy in stage I (cT1c) triple-negative breast cancer: A critical reappraisal.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2026Review
- Understanding, Recognizing, and Managing Cancer-Related Fatigue Associated with Breast Cancer.Current treatment options in oncology · 2026Review
- Article
- Efficacy and Safety of Dose-Dense Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer: Real Clinical Data and Literature Review.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Review
- Comparison of neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy for operable triple-negative breast cancer before the era of immune checkpoint inhibitors: A retrospective study from the Japanese National Clinical Database-Breast Cancer Registry.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
25 authors at 20 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAdjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer has improved outcomes but causes toxicity. The UK TACT2 trial used a 2×2 factorial design to test two hypotheses: whether use of accelerated epirubicin would improve time to tumour recurrence (TTR); and whether use of oral capecitabine instead of cyclophosphamide would be non-inferior in terms of patients' outcomes and would improve toxicity, quality of life, or both.
methodsIn this multicentre, phase 3, randomised, controlled trial, we enrolled patients aged 18 years or older from 129 UK centres who had histologically confirmed node-positive or high-risk node-negative operable breast cancer, had undergone complete excision, and were due to receive adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned to receive four cycles of 100 mg/m
findingsFrom Dec 16, 2005, to Dec 5, 2008, 4391 patients (4371 women and 20 men) were recruited. At a median follow-up of 85·6 months (IQR 80·6-95·9) no significant difference was seen in the proportions of patients free from TTR events between the accelerated and standard epirubicin groups (overall hazard ratio [HR] 0·94, 95% CI 0·81-1·09; stratified p=0·42). At 5 years, 85·9% (95% CI 84·3-87·3) of patients receiving standard epirubicin and 87·1% (85·6-88·4) of those receiving accelerated epirubicin were free from TTR events. 4358 patients were included in the per-protocol analysis, and no difference was seen in the proportions of patients free from TTR events between the CMF and capecitabine groups (HR 0·98, 95% CI 0·85-1.14; stratified p=0·00092 for non-inferiority). Compared with baseline, significantly more patients taking CMF than those taking capecitabine had clinically relevant worsening of quality of life at end of treatment (255 [58%] of 441 vs 235 [50%] of 475; p=0·011) and at 12 months (114 [34%] of 334 vs 89 [22%] of 401; p<0·001 at 12 months) and had worse quality of life over time (p<0·0001). Detailed toxicity and quality-of-life data were collected from 2115 (48%) of treated patients. The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events in cycles 1-4 were neutropenia (175 [16%]) and fatigue (56 [5%]) of the 1070 patients treated with standard epirubicin, and fatigue (63 [6%]) and infection (34 [3%]) of the 1045 patients treated with accelerated epirubicin. In cycles 5-8, the most common grade 3 or higher adverse events were neutropenia (321 [31%]) and fatigue (109 [11%]) in the patients treated with CMF, and hand-foot syndrome (129 [12%]) and diarrhoea (67 [6%]) in the 1044 patients treated with capcitabine.
interpretationWe found no benefit from increasing the dose density of the anthracycline component of chemotherapy. However, capecitabine could be used in place of CMF without significant loss of efficacy and with improved quality of life.
fundingCancer Research UK, Amgen, Pfizer, and Roche.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.