A phase III adjuvant trial of sequenced EC + filgrastim + epoetin-alpha followed by paclitaxel compared to sequenced AC followed by paclitaxel compared to CEF in women with node-positive or high-risk node-negative breast cancer (NCIC CTG MA.21)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
550 Background: CEF and AC followed by paclitaxel (AC/T) are commonly used adjuvant regimens in women with early breast cancer. In a trial conducted by the EORTC, NCIC CTG, and SAKK three months of dose-dense EC was equivalent to six months of CEF in women with locally advanced breast cancer. We hypothesized that three months of a taxane following dose-dense EC would be superior to CEF alone or AC/T. The results of a planned interim analysis were presented in San Antonio 2006 (Abstract #53). We now present more detailed results on efficacy and toxicity. Methods: Women 60 years of age or younger, with axillary node positive or high risk node negative breast cancer were randomized to CEF, EC/T or AC/T for six months. Results: Between December 2000 and April 2005, 2104 patients were enrolled. The median follow-up is 30.4 months. Hazard ratios for recurrence are: AC/T vs. CEF, 1.49 (95% CI, 1.12–1.99), p=0.005; AC/T vs. EC/T, 1.68 (95% CI, 1.25–2.27), p=0.0006; and EC/T vs. CEF, 0.89 (95% CI, 0.64–1.22), p=0.46. Three year recurrence-free survival rates for CEF, EC/T, and AC/T are 90.1, 89.5 and 85.0%, respectively. There was no significant interaction between ER status and treatment. Multivariate analysis of predictive factors will be presented. The numbers of deaths are 50 (CEF), 47 (EC/T) and 65 (AC/T). There was more toxicity in CEF and EC/T compared to AC/T. Conclusion: AC/T given every three weeks, although less toxic is significantly inferior to CEF or EC/T in terms of relapse-free survival. It is too early to detect any difference between CEF and dose-dense EC/T. Our results indicate that there is still room to explore anthracycline and taxane adjuvant chemotherapy regimens. Supported by: NCI Canada and Canadian Cancer Society, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Janssen Ortho, Ortho Biotech, and NCI US. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".