Trial reportBreast cancer research and treatment2020
A randomized study comparing docetaxel/cyclophosphamide (TC), 5-fluorouracil/epirubicin/cyclophosphamide (FEC) followed by TC, and TC followed by FEC for patients with hormone receptor-positive HER2-negative primary breast cancer.
Trial report in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Omission of Anthracycline Chemotherapy in Women with Early HER2-Negative Breast Cancer-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of different regimens of neoadjuvant therapy in patients with hormone receptor-positive, her2-negative breast cancer: a network meta-analysis.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Pooled it
- Clinical utilization of long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (pegfilgrastim) prophylaxis in breast cancer patients with adjuvant docetaxel-cyclophosphamide chemotherapy.Annals of surgical treatment and research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors at 14 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeOur primary objective was to determine the benefit/risk of anthracycline-free regimens by comparing docetaxel + cyclophosphamide (TC) alone, fluorouracil + epirubicin + cyclophosphamide (FEC) followed by TC, or TC followed by FEC as a primary treatment for patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative BC.
methodsWe randomized patients with stage I-III HR-positive HER2-negative, operable BC to receive either six cycles of TC (TC6), three cycles of FEC followed by three cycles of TC (FEC-TC), or three cycles of TC followed by three cycles of FEC (TC-FEC). The primary endpoint was the pathological response. Secondary endpoints included clinical response, type of surgical procedure, recurrence, death, and adverse events (by NCI-Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v.3.0). We conducted all statistical analyses using SAS Version 9.2.
resultsWe enrolled 195 patients and analyzed data from 193 as the intention-to-treat population. Pathological complete response rates were numerically higher in the TC6 group than in the other groups (p = 0.321). The breast conservation rate was significantly higher in the TC6 group (73%) than in the other groups (FEC-TC 51%, TC-FEC 45%, p = 0.007). Adverse events with grade > 3 were not common in the treatment groups (p = 0.569). The overall and distant disease-free survivals were similar among the groups with median follow-up of 5.80 years.
conclusionsDespite similar long-term efficacy and safety profile, the higher breast conservation rate in the TC6 group suggests that preoperative chemotherapy without an anthracycline may benefit patients with HR-positive HER2-negative BC.
trial registrationUMIN000003283 https://upload.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr_e/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000003873.
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.