Improved anti-tumor response rate with decreased cardiotoxicity of non-pegylated liposomal doxorubicin compared with conventional doxorubicin in first-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer in patients who had received prior adjuvant doxorubicin: results of a retrospective analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Our objectives were to ascertain the safety (cardiotoxicity) and efficacy of non-pegylated liposomal doxorubicin [Myocet (M)] compared with conventional doxorubicin (A) in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) who had received adjuvant anthracycline treatment and were at high risk of developing iatrogenic cardiomyopathy. This retrospective analysis is based on data pooled from two prospective phase III comparative randomized clinical trials comparing Myocet versus conventional doxorubicin in combination with cyclophosphamide and as single agents, respectively, for the treatment of MBC. The outcome measures reviewed in this analysis were overall response, time to treatment failure, time to disease progression, overall survival and cardiotoxicity. The analysis was carried out by strata according to patients' previous exposure to adjuvant anthracyclines. Kaplan-Meier, log-rank chi-test, Cox proportional-hazards and Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics were used for the analysis. Sixty-eight patients were included in this analysis: 29 and 39 patients from Studies 1 and 2, respectively, had received adjuvant anthracycline treatment. Study 1, with n=297, compared M 60 mg/m (M60) plus cyclophosphamide (C) 600 mg/m (C600) versus A 60 mg/m (A60) plus C600 as first-line treatment for MBC. Twenty-nine patients had received prior adjuvant doxorubicin, of whom, after randomization, 14 received M60+C600 and 15 received A60+C600 for the treatment of MBC. Study 2, with n=224, compared M 75 mg/m (M75) with A 75 mg/m (A75) as first-line treatment for MBC disease. Thirty-nine patients had received prior adjuvant doxorubicin, of whom, after randomization, 18 received M75 and 21 received A75 for their MBC. Hence, 32 patients received M-containing regimens and 36 received A-containing regimens for the treatment of MBC. Median age in both groups was 54 years. The groups were well balanced in terms of demographic characteristics. Overall response rates were 31% and 11% for M-treated patients and A-treated patients, respectively (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel P=0.04, odds ratio=4.0). Median time to progression was 4.5 versus 3.4 months [log-rank P=0.66, hazard ratio (HR)=1.14], median time to treatment failure was 4.2 versus 2.1 months (log-rank P=0.01, HR=2.06) and median survival time was 16 versus 15 months (log-rank P=0.71, HR=1.12). Cardiac events occurred in 22% of M-treated patients [one congestive heart failure (CHF)] versus 39% of A-treated patients (three CHFs) (log-rank, P=0.001). Median lifetime dose at onset of cardiotoxicity was 780 mg/m for M versus 580 mg/m for A (log-rank P=0.001, HR=4.8). This retrospective analysis shows that treatment based on non-pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (Myocet) significantly reduced the risk of cardiotoxicity in patients with MBC who had received prior adjuvant doxorubicin. Furthermore, anti-tumor activity and time to treatment failure were significantly improved compared with patients who received treatment based on conventional doxorubicin for their MBC. This analysis revisits the therapeutic option of including doxorubicin in the treatment of MBC patients who have had prior adjuvant anthracycline exposure.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».