ArticleBreast (Edinburgh, Scotland)2020
Four cycles of docetaxel and cyclophosphamide as adjuvant chemotherapy in node negative breast cancer: A real-world study.
Article in Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- An economic analysis of Chemo MouthpieceJournal of comparative effectiveness research · 2026Article
- A Real-World Comparison Between Adjuvant Docetaxel with Cyclophosphamide (TC) and Anthracycline-Taxane Chemotherapy in Early HER-2 Negative Breast Cancer.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Article
- Review
- Small changes in the length of diselenide bond-containing linkages exert great influences on the antitumor activity of docetaxel homodimeric prodrug nanoassemblies.Asian journal of pharmaceutical sciences · 2021Article
- Four Cycles of Docetaxel-Cyclophosphamide versus Anthracycline-Taxane as Adjuvant Chemotherapy for HER2-Negative, Axillary Lymph Node Negative Breast Cancer: A Real-World Comparison of Alberta Patients Treated 2008-2012.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe optimal number of cycles of adjuvant docetaxel and cyclophosphamide (DC) in patients with node negative breast cancer is not known. We aimed to analyse the survival outcomes of patients with node negative and human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER2)-negative breast cancer treated with four cycles of DC.
methodsPatients with node negative and HER2-negative breast cancer treated with four cycles of DC after surgery in a large Canadian province from 2008 to 2012 were identified. We analysed the 4-year and 9-year invasive disease free survival (iDFS) and overall survival (OS). Cox regression models were constructed to examine the associations of clinical characteristics with survival outcomes.
resultsA total of 657 patients were eligible for the current analysis. The median age was 53 years and 71.2% of patients had hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Approximately three-fourths of patients had grade III tumours. At a median follow-up of nine years, the 4-year iDFS and OS were 91.0% and 95.5% and the corresponding 9-year rates were 80.5% and 88.0%, respectively. On multivariable Cox regression analysis, grade III tumour predicted worse iDFS (hazard ratio [HR], 2.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-4.21; P = 0.026) and OS (HR, 3.15; 95% CI, 1.18-8.45; P = 0.022).
conclusionsAdjuvant chemotherapy with four cycles of DC in a select population of node negative breast cancer was associated with encouraging long-term survival. In the absence of a randomized comparison between four and six cycles of DC, this study presents real-world evidence to consider four cycles of DC as a reasonable option.
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.