SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “CYCLOPHOSPHAMIDE”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 109 records · Page 6Linked to original sources

PubMed1984

A phase III clinical trial comparing the combination cyclophosphamide, adriamycin, cisplatin with cyclophosphamide, 5-fluorouracil, prednisone in patients with advanced breast cancer.

We assessed the efficacy of a regimen consisting of four cycles of cyclophosphamide, Adriamycin (Adria Laboratories, Inc, Columbus, Ohio), cisplatin (CAP) followed by maintenance with cyclophosphamide, 5-fluorouracil, prednisone (CFP) compared with CFP alone in a randomized trial of 86 patients with advanced breast cancer. The objective regression rates were 46% (CFP) and 49% (CAP with CFP) which included complete regression rates of 7% (CFP) and 4% (CAP with CFP). The median time to progression was nine months for CFP and six months for CAP with CFP. Median survival in the CFP group was 18 months v 11 months in the CAP recipients. Due to the therapeutic trend in favor of patients receiving CFP, we terminated the study before achieving our initially projected accrual. We observed over a twofold excess of substantial nausea and vomiting among patients receiving the platinum-based regimen. In our view, the CAP followed by the CFP regimen is a more toxic program that offers no clinically meaningful improvement over CFP to patients with advanced breast cancer.

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols↗

PubMed1990

Treatment of limited small-cell lung cancer with etoposide and cisplatin alternating with vincristine, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide versus concurrent etoposide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide and chest radiotherapy: a Southwest Oncology Group Study.

The Goldie-Coldman model explaining the kinetics of tumor cell kill and drug resistance has a potential application in designing chemotherapy regimes. In this Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) trial we tested the alternation of two potentially noncrossresistant drug combinations with a concurrent drug combination in patients with limited small-cell lung cancer. The concurrent drug combination consisted of etoposide (VP-16), 75 mg/m2/intravenously (IV), days 1, 2, and 3; vincristine, 1.0 mg/m2/IV, days 1 and 8; Adriamycin (doxorubicin; Adria Laboratories, Columbus, OH), 40 mg/m2/IV, day 1; and cyclophosphamide, 750 mg/m2/IV, day 1 (EVAC). The alternating combination consisted of VP-16, 100 mg/m2/IV, days 1, 2, and 3; and cisplatin (CDDP), 100 mg/m2/IV, day 1, alternating with vincristine, 1.0 mg/m2/IV, days 1 and 8; Adriamycin, 50 mg/m2/IV, day 1; and cyclophosphamide, 750 mg/m2/IV, day 1 (VP-16/CDDP-VAC). Chemotherapy was administered at 3-week intervals for six cycles both before and after chest (5,000 rads/5 weeks) and whole brain radiotherapy (3,000 rads/2 weeks). One hundred ninety-nine patients received EVAC and 201 received the alternating combination. There was no significant difference in the response rate to the initial six cycles of treatment with EVAC (CR, 40%) versus the alternating combination (CR, 38%). There was no significant difference between the best response, EVAC (CR, 48%) and VP-16/CDDP-VAC (CR, 51%). Median survival for all randomized patients on EVAC is 15.1 months versus 16.5 months on the alternating combination (P = .58). Toxicities consisted primarily of bone marrow suppression, anorexia, nausea and vomiting, peripheral neuropathies, and alopecia. As in previous trials, the chest was the most common site of relapse (33%). There were no differences in the incidence and sites of relapse between the two treatment arms. These treatments appear equally effective at inducing remission and prolonging survival in patients with small-cell lung cancer.

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols↗

PubMed1990

Two months of doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide with and without interval reinduction therapy compared with 6 months of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil in positive-node breast cancer patients with tamoxifen-nonresponsive tumors: results from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-15.

The National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) implemented protocol B-15 to compare 2 months of Adriamycin (doxorubicin; Adria Laboratories, Columbus, OH) and cyclophosphamide (AC) with 6 months of conventional cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) in patients with breast cancer nonresponsive to tamoxifen (TAM, T). A second aim was to determine whether AC followed in 6 months by intravenous (IV) CMF was more effective than AC without reinduction therapy. Through 3 years of follow-up, findings from 2,194 patients indicate no significant difference in disease-free survival (DFS, P = .5), distant disease-free survival (DDFS, P = .5) or survival (S, P = .8) among the three groups. Since the outcome from AC and CMF was almost identical, the issue arises concerning which regimen is more appropriate for the treatment of breast cancer patients. AC seems preferable since, following total mastectomy, AC was completed on day 63 versus day 154 for conventional CMF; patients visited health professionals three times as often for conventional CMF as for AC; women on AC received therapy on each of 4 days versus on each of 84 days for conventional CMF; and nausea-control medication was given for about 84 days to conventional CMF patients versus for about 12 days to patients on AC. The difference in the amount of alopecia between the two treatment groups was less than anticipated. While alopecia was almost universally observed following AC therapy, 71% of the CMF patients also had hair loss and, in 41%, the loss was greater than 50%. This study and NSABP B-16, which evaluates the worth of AC therapy in TAM-responsive patients, indicate the merit of 2 months of AC therapy for all positive-node breast cancer patients.

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols↗

PubMed1991

Carboplatin, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide versus cisplatin, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide: a randomized trial in stage III-IV epithelial ovarian carcinoma.

One hundred sixty-four patients with stage III-IV epithelial ovarian carcinoma were randomized to receive cisplatin (CDDP) 50 mg/mq, doxorubicin 45 mg/mq, and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/mq (PAC) or carboplatin 200 mg/mq, doxorubicin 45 mg/m2, and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/mq (CAC). To administer equitoxic doses at each cycle, the drug dosages were adjusted according to the hematologic toxicities experienced after the previous course; 44.7% of CAC and 21.1% of PAC patients required a dosage reduction at the second course (P = .002). Neither CAC nor PAC caused any clinically relevant neuro-nephrotoxicity; however, CDDP was administered with hydration and forced diuresis, while carboplatin was administered by rapid intravenous (IV) infusion. After six cycles, response rates were superimposable: 62.5% and 66.6% for CAC and PAC, respectively; pathologic complete responses (pCRs) were 16.7% for CAC and 23.2% for PAC; among patients with more than 2 cm residual disease, PAC induced more pCRs than CAC (eight of 52 or 15.4% v one of 42 or 2.4%, P = .07). Median survivals and progression-free survivals (PFSs) were 22.6 and 13.2 months for PAC, and 23.1 and 15.5 months for CAC, respectively; these differences are not significant. In conclusion, this trial demonstrates that equitoxic doses of PAC or CAC result in a similar response rate, PFS, and survival.

Adult↗

PubMed1991

Cyclophosphamide plus cisplatin versus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and cisplatin chemotherapy of ovarian carcinoma: a meta-analysis. The Ovarian Cancer Meta-Analysis Project.

Four randomized clinical trials comparing cyclophosphamide plus cisplatin (CP) versus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (CAP) individually failed to show a significant survival difference in the treatment of ovarian carcinoma. However, by pooling 1,194 patients from these trials in a meta-analysis, there is a statistically significant survival benefit for CAP (P = .02); in addition, there is a significant advantage for CAP in frequency of negative second-look laparotomy (CAP, 30%; CP, 23%; P = .01). Because the dose intensity of CAP was greater than CP in three of the trials, it remains unresolved to what extent the benefit of CAP is from greater dose intensity and to what extent it is from the doxorubicin itself. Either interpretation suggests directions for improving the chemotherapy of ovarian carcinoma.

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols↗

PubMed1992

Cisplatin-cyclophosphamide versus carboplatin-cyclophosphamide in advanced ovarian cancer: a randomized phase III study of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group.

PURPOSE: Given the potential for improved tolerance, a trial was initiated to compare the toxicity and efficacy of a standard regimen of cisplatin-cyclophosphamide (75 mg/m2 and 600 mg/m2, respectively) with an experimental regimen of carboplatin-cyclophosphamide (300 mg/m2 and 600 mg/m2, respectively) in women with postoperative macroscopic residual ovarian cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 1985 and 1989, 447 (417 eligible) patients were randomized. Treatment arms were well balanced; most patients had stage III (82%), grade 3 (54%) tumors with bulky residual (greater than 2 cm in 59%), and good performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group [ECOG] 0 or 1, 77%). Response was assessed after six 4-week cycles. RESULTS: The treatments were equally deliverable, with 76% of patients completing their allocated regimen. The reported reasons for failure to complete treatment differed; toxicity/refusal predominated on the cisplatin arm, and progressive disease predominated on the carboplatin arm (P = .0092). Cisplatin-treated patients were more likely to develop neuropathy and nephropathy, and carboplatin patients experienced myelosuppression, particularly thrombocytopenia. Efficacy was similar, with no significant differences for the cisplatin and carboplatin arms in clinical response rate (57% v 59% in those with measurable disease), pathologic response rate (52% v 54% in those suitable for relaparotomy), time to progression (median, 56 v 58 weeks), or overall survival (median, 100 weeks v 110 weeks). Time to progression and survival were predicted by residual disease size, performance status, and treatment center (with those treated at centers that accrued more patients doing better). CONCLUSION: Neither regimen is optimal in that relapse remains the norm. It may be inappropriate to expect that any single regimen can be an effective therapy for all patients with advanced ovarian cancer. Both cisplatin and carboplatin are likely to have a role in future treatment strategies.

Adult↗

PubMed1996

Adjuvant cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil versus fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide chemotherapy in premenopausal women with axillary node-positive operable breast cancer: results of a randomized trial. The International Collaborative Cancer Group.

PURPOSE: To determine whether a combination chemotherapy regimen that contains epirubicin (fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide [FEC]) is superior to the standard cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) combination in premenopausal women with axillary node-positive operable breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The International Collaborative Cancer Group (ICCG) conducted a large randomized trial in which two alternative schedules were used according to participating center: CMF1 versus FEC1 and CMF2 versus FEC2. RESULTS: Seven hundred fifty-nine patients were entered onto the trial. At a median follow-up time of 4.5 years, no significant benefit for the anthracycline-containing regimen was observed in terms of relapse-free (P = .61) or overall survival (P = .13). FEC1 and CMF1 appear to be of similar efficacy, but there is a suggestion that FEC2 may be superior to CMF2, since patients who received FEC2 had improved overall (P = .02) and relapse-free survival (P = .03) rates. Nausea and vomiting and alopecia were more common in the epirubicin-containing regimen (P = .001). CONCLUSION: We conclude that the FEC2 regimen, in which epirubicin replaced the methotrexate in CMF, is the preferable adjuvant chemotherapy regimen for premenopausal patients with operable axillary node-positive breast cancer.

Adult↗

PubMed1996

Adjuvant treatment of node-positive breast cancer with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, fluorouracil, and vincristine versus cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil: final report after a 16-year median follow-up duration.

PURPOSE: To determine the long-term impact on disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) of adjuvant anthracycline-based chemotherapy, when prospectively compared by random allocation with standard cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) in node-positive (N+) breast cancer patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two hundred forty-nine patients with N+ breast cancer, recruited from eight French cancer centers, were randomized to receive 12 monthly cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy, either CMF (n = 112) or doxorubicin, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, and fluorouracil (AVCF) (n = 136). All had a negative metastatic work-up before inclusion, which was stratified by accrual center, tumor stage (International Union Against Cancer [UICC]), and menopausal status. RESULTS: No severe adverse effect related to grade 4 (World Health Organization [WHO]) toxicity was observed. There was no difference in second primary tumor incidence between the two arms. The treatment given was 88% of planned for AVCF and 75% for CMF in both premenopausal and menopausal patients. With a median follow-up time of 16 years (range, 13 to 17), the OS and DFS rates are significantly longer in the AVCF arm (56% v 41% [P = .01] for OS, and 53% v 36% [P = .006] for DFS). These differences are significant, irrespective of tumor stage (T1 to T2 v T3 to T4), and remain positive in patients with or without postoperative locoregional radiotherapy (55% of cohort). When analyzed according to menopausal status, the differences remain significant only for premenopausal patients. CONCLUSION: This set of mature controlled data confirms the added value of anthracycline-based combination adjuvant therapy for N+ breast cancer patients when compared with CMF, with both regimens given for 1 year.

Adult↗

PubMed2003

Quality of life in women with breast cancer during the first year after random assignment to adjuvant treatment with marrow-supported high-dose chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide, thiotepa, and carboplatin or tailored therapy with Fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide: Scandinavian Breast Group Study 9401.

PURPOSE: To compare, in high-risk breast cancer patients, the effects on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of two adjuvant treatments. Treatments were compared at eight points during the first year after random assignment to treatment with tailored fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FEC) therapy for nine courses versus induction FEC therapy for three courses followed by high-dose chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide, thiotepa, and carboplatin (CTCb) supported by peripheral-blood stem cells. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From March 1994 to March 1998, 525 breast cancer patients (estimated relapse risk > 70% within 5 years with standard therapy) were included in the Scandinavian Breast Group 9401 study. HRQoL evaluation, using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ)-C30 and EORTC Breast Cancer Module-23, included 408 of 446 eligible patients in Finland, Norway, and Sweden. RESULTS: Eighty-four percent to 95% of the patients completed questionnaires at eight points of assessment. Nostatistically significant overall differences were found between the tailored FEC group and the CTCb group for any of the HRQoL variables. Statistically significant differences over time were found for all HRQoL variables. HRQoL in the CTCb group demonstrated a steeper decrease, but a faster recovery than in the tailored FEC group. Emotional functioning improved with increased time from randomization. Higher levels of problems in body image and arm symptoms were reported in the tailored FEC group compared with the CTCb group. Sexual functioning and satisfaction were impaired during the study period. CONCLUSION: Both treatments had a negative influence on HRQoL during the treatment period. Despite the aggressive therapies, the patient's HRQoL returned to levels found at inclusion on most variables.

Adult↗

PubMed2005

Randomized, controlled trial of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil versus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and fluorouracil with and without tamoxifen for high-risk, node-negative breast cancer: treatment results of Intergroup Protocol INT-0102.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the efficacy of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) versus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and fluorouracil (CAF) in node-negative breast cancer patients with and without tamoxifen (TAM), overall and by hormone receptor (HR) status. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Node-negative patients identified by tumor size (> 2 cm), negative HR, or high S-phase fraction (n = 2,690) were randomly assigned to CMF, CAF, CMF + TAM (CMFT), or CAF + TAM (CAFT). Cox regression evaluated overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) for CAF versus CMF and TAM versus no TAM separately. Two-sided CIs and one-sided P values for planned comparisons were calculated. RESULTS: Ten-year estimates indicated that CAF was not significantly better than CMF (P = .13) for the primary outcome of DFS (77% v 75%; HR = 1.09; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.27). CAF had slightly better OS than CMF (85% v 82%, HR = 1.19 for CMF v CAF; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.43); values were statistically significant in the planned one-sided test (P = .03). Toxicity was greater with CAF and did not increase with TAM. Overall, TAM had no benefit (DFS, P = .16; OS, P = .37), but the TAM effect differed by HR groups. For HR-positive patients, TAM was beneficial (DFS, HR = 1.32 for no TAM v TAM; 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.61; P = .003; OS, HR = 1.26; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.61; P = .03), but not for HR-negative patients (DFS, HR = 0.81 for no TAM v TAM; 95% CI, 0.64 to 1.03; OS, HR = 0.79; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.05). CONCLUSION: CAF did not improve DFS compared with CMF; there was a slight effect on OS. Given greater toxicity, we cannot conclude CAF to be superior to CMF. TAM is effective in HR-positive disease, but not in HR-negative disease.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2005

retrospective analysis of topoisomerase IIa amplifications and deletions as predictive markers in primary breast cancer patients randomly assigned to cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil or cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and fluorouracil: Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group.

PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to evaluate the predictive value of HER2 and topoisomerase IIalpha gene (TOP2A) for the efficacy of epirubicin in the adjuvant setting of breast cancer patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group trial 89D, 980 pre- and postmenopausal primary patients were randomly allocated to either CMF (cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil; n = 500) or CEF (cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and fluorouracil; n = 480) times 9, between January 1990 and November 1999. Tumor tissue was retrospectively identified from 805 patients and was analyzed for HER2-positivity and for TOP2A-amplifications and deletions. RESULTS: HER2-positivity was found in 33% of the 805 investigated tumors and was not a predictive marker for epirubicin sensitivity. TOP2A changes were identified in 23% of the 773 investigated tumors: 12% had TOP2A amplifications and 11% had TOP2A deletions. We found that patients with TOP2A amplification had an increased recurrence-free (RFS; hazard ratio [HR], 0.43; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.78) and overall survival (OS; HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.29 to 1.13), respectively if treated with CEF compared with CMF, and that patients with TOP2A deletions had an almost identical hazard ratio (RFS: HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.36 to 1.11; OS: HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.30 to 1.04). This is in contrast to patients with a normal TOP2A genotype for whom similar outcome was observed in both treatment arms (RFS: HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.17; OS: HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.17). CONCLUSION: TOP2A amplification-and possibly deletion-seems to be predictive markers for the effect of adjuvant epirubicin containing therapy in primary breast cancer, but a final conclusion has to await a confirmative study or a meta-analysis.

Antigens, Neoplasm↗

PubMed2006

Phase III trial comparing doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide with docetaxel plus cyclophosphamide as adjuvant therapy for operable breast cancer.

PURPOSE: The combination of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) is a standard adjuvant chemotherapy regimen. Studies of docetaxel and cyclophosphamide (TC) in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) showed promise in MBC. In 1997, we initiated a randomized adjuvant trial of TC compared with standard-dose AC with a primary end point of disease-free survival (DFS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were eligible if they had stage I to III operable invasive breast cancer with complete surgical excision of the primary tumor. Between June 1997 and December 1999, 1,016 patients were randomly assigned to four cycles of either standard-dose AC (60 and 600 mg/m2, respectively; n = 510) or TC (75 and 600 mg/m2, respectively; n = 506), administered intravenously every 3 weeks as adjuvant chemotherapy. Radiation therapy (as indicated) and tamoxifen, for patients with hormone receptor-positive disease, were administered after completion of chemotherapy. RESULTS: Both treatment groups (TC and AC) were well balanced with respect to major prognostic factors. Patients were observed through 2005 for a median of 5.5 years. At 5 years, DFS rate was significantly superior for TC compared with AC (86% v 80%, respectively; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.94; P = .015). Overall survival rates for TC and AC were 90% and 87%, respectively (HR = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.1; P = .13). More myalgia, arthralgia, edema, and febrile neutropenia occurred on the TC arm; more nausea and vomiting occurred on the AC arm as well as one incident of congestive heart failure. CONCLUSION: At 5 years, TC was associated with a superior DFS and a different toxicity profile compared with AC.

Adult↗

PubMed1993

Design and rationale of a randomised comparison of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and fluorouracil vs fluorouracil, epirubicin and cyclophosphamide in node-positive premenopausal women with operable breast cancer. A trial of the International Collaborative Cancer Group (ICCG).

In 1984, the International Collaborative Cancer Group (ICCG) started a randomised trial comparing adjuvant treatment with cyclophosphamide 100 mg/m2 orally on days 1 to 14, methotrexate 40 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1 and 8 plus fluorouracil 600 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1 and 8 every 4 weeks for 6 cycles (CMF) vs fluorouracil 600 mg/m2, epirubicin 50 mg/m2 and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2 (FEC), all given intravenously on day 1 for 8 cycles at 3-week intervals in premenopausal patients with node-positive breast cancer. However, a large French institution that joined the ICCG shortly after the trial was initiated utilised different schedules of both CMF and FEC. Because different dose intensities were also employed, particularly of FEC, both patient groups, the French and non-French, will be analysed separately. A total of 761 patients were randomised as of March 1992. Patients were well balanced for prognostic factors. The median follow-up is now 3.5 years. Preliminary data have previously been reported in abstract form. Final data will be presented pending further follow-up.

Administration, Oral↗

PubMed2005

Q-TWiST analysis of cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, fluorouracil versus cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, fluorouracil treatment for premenopausal women with node-positive breast cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the Q-TWiST (Quality-Adjusted Time Without Symptoms and Toxicity) for premenopausal women with axillary node-positive breast cancer receiving either cyclophosphamide, epirubicin and fluorouracil (CEF) or cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF), using data from a phase III clinical trial (National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group [NCIC-CGT.MA5]). METHODS: Restricted mean times by treatment group were computed at 3, 4 and 5 years as the area under the Kaplan-Meier survival curves for the period of treatment-related symptomatic toxicities (TOX), disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Restricted REL (the period of relapse) and TWiST (the period of best possible QOL after breast cancer diagnosis) mean times were indirectly computed as OS minus DFS and DFS minus TOX, respectively. It was assumed that TWiST has a utility coefficient equal to 1. Patients' utility values were arbitrarily set to 0.5 for the toxicity and relapse health states. It was assumed that the utility scores were constant over time. A threshold utility sensitivity analysis was conducted allowing the trade-off between the two treatments to be assessed for the entire range of the utility coefficients. A bootstrap empirical test distribution of the Q-TWiST difference between CEF and CMF was constructed in order to test the statistical significance of the Q-TWiST difference point estimate. RESULTS: The Q-TWiST mean differences (CEF minus CMF) were -0.37, 1.20 and 2.62 months at 3, 4 and 5 years, respectively. Positive differences are in favour of the CEF arm but none of the above differences were statistically significant. The threshold-utility analysis confirmed the indifference of treatment choice with respect to the utility values, at least at 5 years. There were no combinations of TOX and REL utility values such that the Q-TWiST for the standard therapy (CMF) was greater than the Q-TWiST of the experimental treatment (CEF). CONCLUSION: The computed Q-TWiST difference of 2.62 months in favour of CEF (p = 0.492 vs CMF), while not statistically significant, is an indicator that CEF treatment could be a better choice from the patient's perspective than CMF after 5 years of treatment. These results should be considered within the context of the methodological limitations posed by the assumptions in the study.

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Chemotherapy in advanced breast carcinoma. Comparison between doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide and cyclophosphamide-methotrexate-5-fluorouracil-vincristine-prednisone.

Two chemotherapeutic regimens were compared in 102 patients with metastatic breast carcinoma, randomized to either doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide (DC) or cyclophosphamide-methotrexate-5-fluorouracil-vincristine-prednisone (CMFVP). The objective response rates were 32 per cent in the former and 35 per cent in the latter group, the complete response rates 6.4 and 21.8 per cent, and mean duration of the remission 7.7 and 11.2 months, respectively. Most responders had multiple metastases and had received previous hormonal treatment. The DC regimen was found to be slightly more toxic than CMFVP.

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols↗

PubMed2002

A combination of dexamethasone, cyclophosphamide, etoposide, and cisplatin is less toxic and more effective than high-dose cyclophosphamide for peripheral stem cell mobilization in multiple myeloma.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and toxicity of two regimens for peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) mobilization in multiple myeloma (MM) patients. DESIGN AND METHODS: From 1995 to 2001, 116 patients were enrolled in two high-dose programs including autologous transplantation, adopting two mobilizing regimens: 61 patients were mobilized with high-dose cyclophosphamide (HD-Cy) at 4 g/m2 (group I), and 55 patients with DCEP (dexamethasone, cyclophosphamide, etoposide, and cisplatin) (group II), both followed by granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF 5 mg/Kg/day) started 48 hours after chemotherapy. RESULTS: The median number of CD34+ cells harvested was similar in the two groups (5.9 vs 5.82x106 cells/kg). The target of at least 4x106 cells/kg was reached in a higher percentage of patients in the DCEP group (75 vs 59%) (p=0.05). The proportion of poor mobilizers (<2x106 CD34+ cells/kg) was 21% with HD-Cy and 13% with DCEP (P=NS). In group I, 10 patients (16%) required packed red cell transfusions, 5 patients (8%) platelet support, and the majority of patients (87%) had a neutrophil count below 500/mL, whereas none did so in group II (p=0.0009, p=0.01, p=0.0009, respectively). Neutropenia-related fever occurred in 18% of patients in group I versus 0% in group II (p=0.0005). WHO grade >II extra-hematologic toxicities (microhematuria, cystitis, infections) were seen in 8 patients (13%) of group I vs 0 in group II (p=0.007). INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS: DCEP is a better tolerated and more effective regimen than HD-Cy for peripheral stem cell mobilization in MM patients assigned to high-dose therapy programs.

Adult↗

PubMed1992

Cyclophosphamide, adriamycin and cisplatin (CAP) versus cyclophosphamide, adriamycin and vincristin (CAV) in the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer: a randomized study.

Two combinations of chemotherapy agents were compared for therapeutic effectiveness on 83 patients with advanced ovarian carcinoma (stages III and IV) in a prospective single-blind randomized trial. Forty-two patients were treated with cyclophosphamide, adriamycin, and vincristin (CAV), and 41 patients were treated with cyclophosphamide, adriamycin, and cisplatin (CAP). In the CAP treated group 34 (82.9%) and in the CAV treated group 23 (54.8%) responded to cytostatic therapy. The median progression free interval was longer in the CAP (14 months) than in the CAV (10 months) treatment group. The median survival was 24 months and 15 months in favor of the CAP therapy. The log-rank and Wilcoxon statistics for the comparison of the progression free interval and survival curves indicated statistically significant therapeutic advantages for the CAP treatment combination.

Adult↗

PubMed1992

Growth in children after bone marrow transplantation: busulfan plus cyclophosphamide versus cyclophosphamide plus total body irradiation.

Growth was assessed during the first and second years following bone marrow transplantation (BMT) in 47 children treated by either busulfan plus cyclophosphamide (BU/CY) (n = 24) or cyclophosphamide plus fractionated total body irradiation (CY/TBI) (n = 23). Before transplant, the median height was only 0.2 SD below age- and sex-adjusted means (range, -2.5 to +3.0). Height was greater than 2.0 SD below normal in only three patients (6%). The pretransplant heights were comparable in the BU/CY and CY/TBI groups (-0.1 v -0.6 SD, P = .35). Following transplant, median 1- and 2-year heights were 0.7 and 0.9 SD below normal, respectively. Growth rates were 2.2 SD and 1.4 SD below normal during the first and second years, respectively. Growth rates were greater than 2.0 SD below normal in 24 of 47 (51%) at 1 year and in 12 of 31 (39%) at 2 years after transplant. Growth rates in patients treated with BU/CY were comparable to those treated with CY/TBI during both years: -2.5 versus -1.7 SD during the first year (P = .19, Wilcoxon), and -1.5 versus -1.1 SD during the second year (P = .61). Growth rates during the second year correlated with growth rates during the first year (r = .36, P = .046). Growth rates during the first year were lower in patients who had been given prior cranial irradiation, those who were near pubertal age at the time of transplant, and those who were transplanted for a disease other than acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). During the second year, poor rates of growth were associated only with the use of corticosteroids after transplant.

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols↗