MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract P1-13-01: A randomized trial of CEF versus dose dense EC followed by paclitaxel versus AC followed by paclitaxel in women with node positive or high risk node negative breast cancer, NCIC CTG MA.21: Results of the final relapse free survival analysis.

2012· article· en· W2325065247 on OpenAlexaffabout
MJ Burnell, L. E. Shepherd, Karen A. Gelmon, V H Bramwell, Barbara Walley, E Vandenberg, Haji Chalchal, K.I. Pritchard, Timothy J. Whelan, Kathy S. Albain, EA Perez, H. S. Rugo, Pierre O'Brien, J-AW Chapman, MN Levine

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Treatment and Pharmacology
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesOttawa Regional Cancer FoundationHealth Sciences CentreSaint John Regional HospitalMcMaster UniversityQueen's UniversityUniversity of CalgaryJuravinski Cancer CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerEpirubicinInternal medicinePaclitaxelRandomized controlled trialTaxaneCyclophosphamideGastroenterologyChemotherapyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: In 2000, cyclophosphamide(C), epirubicin(E) and fluorouracil (F) (CEF) and doxorubicin (A) and C followed by paclitaxel (T) (AC/T) given every three weeks were commonly used regimens in Canada and the USA to treat women with node positive or high risk node negative operable breast cancer. In a previous trial in women with locally advanced breast cancer, 3 months of dose-dense EC was equivalent to six months of CEF. We hypothesized that the addition of 3 months of a taxane following dose-dense EC would be superior to CEF alone or AC/T. In a randomized trial in women with early breast cancer we compared CEF, dose dense EC/T and AC/T. An interim analysis (JCO, 2010) conducted when 50% of the events for the relapse-free-survival (RFS) analysis were observed, demonstrated that AC/T administered every 3 weeks was significantly inferior to CEF or EC/T. The results of the final RFS including CEF versus EC/T will be presented. Methods: Women, 60 years or younger, with operable axillary node positive or high risk node negative breast cancer were randomized to adjuvant CEF, EC/T or AC/T. CEF was given for 6 cycles and consisted of: C 75 mg/m2 orally on Days 1–14, and E 60 mg/m2 and F 500 mg/m2, IV on Days 1 and 8. CEF patients received concurrent antibiotic prophylaxis. EC/T consisted of 6 cycles of EC every 14 days; E 120 mg/m2 and C 830 mg/m2, both IV on Day 1 with filgrastim 5 [ug]/kg/day subcutaneous from Days 2–13 and epoetin alpha 40,000 units subcutaneous once weekly. After completion of EC, 4 cycles of T 175 mg/m2 every 21 days with filgrastim and epoetin alpha were given. The AC/T regimen consisted of A 60 mg/m2 and C 600 mg/m2 IV every 21 days for 4 cycles. This was followed by T 175 mg/m2 every 21 days for 4 cycles. The final analysis for RFS was planned when 453 events were observed permitting the detection of a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.43 between CEF and AC/T and a HR of 1.43 between EC/T and the best of the other two arms. Quality of Life data using the EORTC C-30 and the Breast Cancer Chemotherapy questionnaires were collected throughout the study. The results will be available at the time of the presentation. Results: A total of 2104 women were enrolled between December 2000 and April 2005. The required 453 events for the RFS analysis were observed by the clinical cut-off date of March 30, 2012. At this point 369 deaths had been observed. The median follow-up is 87.5 months. Outstanding data and queries are currently being collected and reviewed with an expected database lock and final analysis mid August, 2012. Febrile neutropenia remains higher on the CEF and EC/T arms while more neuropathy was seen in the taxane containing regimens. Conclusions: Although the two regimens considered a standard of care at the time the study was initiated are no longer widely used, the trial results will enhance our understanding of the magnitude of benefit of taxane following an anthracycline, the significance of cumulative anthracycline dose, and the role of dose density/ intensity as backbone of conventional chemo regimens. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2012;72(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-13-01.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.339 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicCancer Treatment and PharmacologyFrench-language works237,207