Trial reportBreast cancer research and treatment2023
Randomized phase III trial of a neoadjuvant regimen of four cycles of adriamycin plus cyclophosphamide followed by four cycles of docetaxel (AC4-D4) versus a shorter treatment of three cycles of FEC followed by three cycles of docetaxel (FEC3-D3) in node-positive breast cancer (Neo-shorter; NCT02001506).
Trial report in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02001506 (A Randomized Phase III Trial of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy With 3 Cycles of FEC Followed by 3 Cycles of Docetaxel Versus 4 Cycles of Adriamycin Plus Cyclophosphamide Followed by 4 Cycles of Docetaxel in Node-positive Breast Cancer), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
A Randomized Phase III Trial of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy With 3 Cycles of FEC Followed by 3 Cycles of Docetaxel Versus 4 Cycles of Adriamycin Plus Cyclophosphamide Followed by 4 Cycles of Docetaxel in Node-positive Breast Cancer
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo determine whether six cycles of FEC3-D3 has a comparable efficacy to eight of AC4-D4.
methodsThe enrolled patients (pts) were clinically diagnosed with stage II or III breast cancer. The primary endpoint was a pathologic complete response (pCR), and the secondary endpoints were 3 year disease-free survival (3Y DFS), toxicities, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We calculated that 252 pts were needed in each treatment group to enable the detection of non-inferiority (non-inferiority margin of 10%).
resultsIn terms of ITT analysis, 248 pts were finally enrolled. The 218 pts who completed the surgery were included in the current analysis. The baseline characteristics of these subjects were well balanced between the two arms. By ITT analysis, pCR was achieved in 15/121 (12.4%) pts in the FEC3-D3 arm and 18/126 (14.3%) in the AC4-D4 arm. With a median follow up of 64.1 months, the 3Y DFS was comparable between the two arms (75.8% in FEC3-D3 vs. 75.6% in AC4-D4). The most common adverse event (AE) was Grade 3/4 neutropenia, which arose in 27/126 (21.4%) AC4-D4 arm pts vs 23/121 (19.0%) FEC3-D3 arm cases. The primary HRQoL domains were similar between the two groups (FACT-B scores at baseline, P = 0.35; at the midpoint of NACT, P = 0.20; at the completion of NACT, P = 0.44).
conclusionSix cycles of FEC3-D3 could be an alternative to eight of AC4-D4. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02001506. Registered December 5,2013. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02001506.
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.