Phase III Comparative Study of Vinorelbine Combined With Doxorubicin Versus Doxorubicin Alone in Disseminated Metastatic/Recurrent Breast Cancer: National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group Study MA8
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This phase III study was performed to determine the superiority of doxorubicin (DOX) and vinorelbine (VNB) (arm 1) versus DOX alone (arm 2) in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) for overall survival (OS), time to treatment failure (TTF), toxicity, and quality of life (QOL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three hundred three patients were randomized to DOX 50 mg/m(2) intravenously (IV) on day 1 and VNB 25 mg/m(2) IV on days 1 and 8 (arm 1) or DOX 70 mg/m(2) IV on day 1 (arm 2). Both regimens were given every 3 weeks until a cumulative DOX dose of 450 mg/m(2). After 16 of the first 65 randomized patients experienced febrile neutropenia (FN), the doses were reduced to DOX 40 mg/m(2) on day 1 and VNB 20 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 versus DOX 60 mg/m(2) on day 1. Eligible patients were vinca alkaloid and anthracycline naive. Chemotherapy was first-line or second-line for MBC. RESULTS: Three patients were ineligible. Thus, 300 patients were assessable for toxicity and to determine time to disease progression (TTP), TTF, and OS. Two hundred eighty-nine patients were assessable for response, and 99 responders were assessable for response duration (RD). The response rates, QOL, and median RD, TTP, and TTF were not significantly different between the arms. Median OS was 13.8 months for arm 1 versus 14.4 months for arm 2 (P =.4). Grade 3 or 4 granulocytopenia was equivalent in both arms but more grade 3/4 neurotoxicity, mild venous toxicity, and FN were seen on arm 1. CONCLUSION: The survival with DOX and VNB is not superior to DOX alone in MBC.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".