Epirubicin/docetaxel regimen in progressive breast cancer—a phase II study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of 6 months' treatment with the combination of epirubicin and docetaxel in metastatic breast cancer. Thirty-eight women (mean age 51 years, range 35-72) with metastatic breast cancer were treated with a regimen of epirubicin 75 mg/m and docetaxel 75 mg/m every 3 weeks, given 4 times if progression was seen upon evaluation after 4 courses or 8 times in responding/stable patients. The patients received 285 cycles of combination treatment and two treatments with docetaxel or epirubicin alone. When neutropenia with fever was observed, further cycles were given with dose reduction. The median cumulative docetaxel dose was 462 mg/m (range 199-600) and that of epirubicin 476 mg/m (range 199-740). The overall response rate was 54% (95% CI 37-71), with a median duration of response of 14.8 months (95% CI 8.8-27.8). Median time to progression was 12 months, median survival 26 months. Neutropenia below 0.5 x 10 /l occurred following 113 (39%) of the total of 285 cycles given; 21 patients (55%) were hospitalized for febrile neutropenia. We conclude that dose tailoring is required in treatment with an epirubicin and docetaxel regimen to avoid grade 3/4 adverse effects in a significant number of patients treated for metastatic breast cancer.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".