DrugLib.com — Drug Information Portal

Rx drug information, pharmaceutical research, clinical trials, news, and more

Oral uracil and tegafur compared with classic cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, fluorouracil as postoperative chemotherapy in patients with node-negative, high-risk breast cancer: National Surgical Adjuvant Study for Breast Cancer 01 Trial.

Author(s): Watanabe T, Sano M, Takashima S, Kitaya T, Tokuda Y, Yoshimoto M, Kohno N, Nakagami K, Iwata H, Shimozuma K, Sonoo H, Tsuda H, Sakamoto G, Ohashi Y

Affiliation(s): Department of Medicine, Hamamatsu Oncology Center, Hamamatsu, Shizuoka, 430-0929, Japan. twatanab@oncoloplan.com

Publication date & source: 2009-03-20, J Clin Oncol., 27(9):1368-74. Epub 2009 Feb 9.

Publication type: Clinical Trial, Phase III; Multicenter Study; Randomized Controlled Trial; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

PURPOSE: The primary aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of oral uracil-tegafur (UFT) with that of classical cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) given as postoperative adjuvant treatment to women with node-negative, high-risk breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women with node-negative, high-risk breast cancer were randomly assigned to receive either 2 years of UFT or six cycles of CMF after surgery. The primary end point was relapse-free survival (RFS). Overall survival (OS), toxicity, and quality of life (QOL) were secondary end points. The hypothesis was that UFT was not inferior to CMF in terms of RFS. RESULTS: Between October 1996 and April 2001, a total of 733 patients were randomly assigned to receive either treatment. The median follow-up time was 6.2 years. The RFS rates at 5 years were 88.0% in the CMF arm and 87.8% in the UFT arm. OS rates were 96.0% and 96.2%, respectively. The hazard ratios of the UFT arm relative to the CMF arm were 0.98 for RFS (95% CI, 0.66 to 1.45; P = .92) and 0.81 for OS (95% CI, 0.44 to 1.48; P = .49). The toxicity profiles differed between the two groups. The QOL scores were better for patients given UFT than those given CMF. CONCLUSION: RFS and OS with oral UFT were similar to those with classical CMF. Given the higher QOL scores, oral UFT is a promising alternative to CMF for postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy in women with node-negative, high-risk breast cancer.

Page last updated: 2009-10-20

-- advertisement -- The American Red Cross
Home | About Us | Contact Us | Site usage policy | Privacy policy

All Rights reserved - Copyright DrugLib.com, 2006-2017