Efficacy and Safety of Dose-Dense Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer: Real Clinical Data and Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dose-dense chemotherapy shortens the interval between chemotherapy cycles and has shown improved outcomes in high-risk breast cancer patients. We retrospectively evaluated the efficacy and safety of dose-dense chemotherapy in 80 breast cancer patients treated at our hospital from 2020 to 2024. The regimen included epirubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel or docetaxel, with pegfilgrastim support. The overall treatment completion rate was 82.5%. Of the 80 patients, 55 underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and the pathological complete response rate was significantly higher in triple-negative breast cancer (59.1%) compared to that in luminal-type cancer (9.1%). Common adverse events included anemia, liver dysfunction, myalgia, and peripheral neuropathy. Febrile neutropenia occurred in 8.8% of patients, with some cases linked to pegfilgrastim body pod use, particularly in individuals with low subcutaneous fat. Notably, two patients developed pneumocystis pneumonia, potentially associated with steroid administration. Despite these toxicities, most were manageable and resolved after treatment. Our findings support the efficacy of dose-dense chemotherapy, particularly in triple-negative breast cancer, while highlighting the importance of individualized supportive care and vigilance regarding hematologic and infectious complications.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".