Randomized, Controlled, Multicenter Phase III Trial of Standard-Dose Fluorouracil-Epirubicin- Cyclophosphamide (FEC), Compared with Time-Intensive FEC (FEC-G) and Mitoxantrone-Methotrexate-Mitomycin C (MMM-G) in Metastatic Breast Carcinoma

References

• Carmo-Pereira J, Costa FO, Henriques E, et al. A com-parison of two doses of adriamycin in the primary chemother-apy of disseminated breast cancer. Br J Cancer 1987; 56: 471–473.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Habeshaw T, Paul J, Jones R, et al. Epirubicin at two dose levels with prednisone as treatment for advanced breast cancer: the results of a randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 1991; 1 9: 295–304.
   Google Scholar
• Wood WC, Budman DR, Korzun AH, et al. Dose and dose-intensity of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II, node-positive breast carcinoma. N Engl J Med 1994; 330: 1253–1259.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hryniuk W, Bush H. The importance of dose-intensity in chemotherapy of metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1984; 4: 1281–1288.
   Google Scholar
• Biganzoli L, Piccart MJ. The bigger the better., or what we know and what we still need to learn about anthracycline dose per course, dose density and cumulative dose in the treatment of breast cancer. Ann Oncol 1997; 8: 1177-1182.
   Google Scholar
• Hryniuk WM. More is better. J Clin Oncol 1988; 6: 1376–1377.
   Google Scholar
• Schabel FMJr, Griswold DP, Corbettt TH, et al. Increasing the therapeutic response rate to anticancer drugs by applying the basic principles of pharmacology. Cancer 1980; 50: 1160–1167.
   Google Scholar
• Tannock IF, Body NF, De Boer G, et al. A randomized trial of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and fluorouracil chemotherapy for patients with metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1998; 6: 1377–1387.
   Google Scholar
• Focan C, Andien JM, Closon MT, et al. Dose-response relationship of epirubicin-based first-line chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer: A prospective randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 1993; 11: 1253–1263.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• French Epirubicin Study Group. A prospective random-ized trial comparing epirubicin monochemotherapy to two flu-orouracil, cyclophosphamide, and epirubicin regimens differing in epirubicin dose in advanced breast cancer patients. J ClinOncol 1991; 9: 305–312.
   Google Scholar
• Brufman G, Colajori E, Ghilezan N, et al. Doubling epirubicin dose-intensity (100 mg/m2 versus 50 mg/m2) in the FEC regimen significantly increases response rate. An interna-tional randomised phase III study in metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol 1997; 8: 155–162.
   Google Scholar
• Marschner N, Krelenberg R, Souchon R, et al. Evaluation of the importance and relevance of dose intensity using epirubicin and cyclophosphamide in metastatic breast cancer: Interim analysis of a prospective randomized trial. Semin Oncol 1994; 21 (Suppl 1): 10–16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bastholt L, Dalmark M, Gjedde B, et al. Dose-response relationship of epirubicin in the treatment of postmenopausal patients with metastatic breast cancer: a randomized study of epirubicin at four different dose levels performed by Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group. J Clin Oncol 1996; 14: 1146–1155.
   Google Scholar
• Fountzilas G, Athanassiades A, Giannakakis T, et al. A randomized study of epirubicin monotherapy every four or every two weeks in advanced breast cancer: a Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group study. Ann Oncol 1997; 8: 1231–1220.
   Google Scholar
• Yarker YE, Goa KL. Lenograstim, a review of its phar-macological properties and therapeutic efficacy in neutropenia and related clinical settings. Drugs 1995; 49: 767–793.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunn CJ, Goa KL. Lenograstim: an update of its phar-macological properties and use in chemotherapy-induced neu-tropenia and related clinical settings. Drugs 2000; 59: 681–717.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gisselbrecht C, Haioun C, Lepage E, et al. Placebo-controlled phase III study of lenogratism (glycosylated recombi-nant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) in aggres-sive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: factors influencing chemother-apy administration. Leuk Lymphoma 1997; 25: 289–300.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dixon WJ, Brown MB. BMDP biomedical computer programs. Re1.7.0. University of California, Berkeley, Los Angeles, 1992.
   Google Scholar
• Hintze J. NCSS 2001, Statistical Analysis System. Rel 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Peto R, Peto J. A symptomatically efficient rank invari-ant test procedure. J R Stat Soc 1972; 35: 185–198.
   Google Scholar
• Metha CR, Patel NR, Tsiatis AA. Exact significance testing to establish treatment equivalence for ordered categori-cal data. Biometrics 1984; 40: 819–825.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agresti A. Categorical Data Analysis. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1990.
   Google Scholar
• Kaplan E, Meier P. Non-parametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc 1958; 53: 457–481.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox DR. Regression model and life-tables. J R Stat Soc 1972; 34: 187–202.
   Google Scholar
• Hryniuk WM, Bush H. The importance of dose-intensi-ty in the outcome of chemotherapy. Important Adv Oncol 1988; 1: 121–141.
   Google Scholar
• Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staquet M, et al. Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer 1981; 47: 207–214.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stadtmauer EA, O'Neil A, Goldstein LJ, et al. Conventional dose chemotherapy compared with high dose chemotherapy plus autologous hematopoietic stem-cell trans-plantation for metastatic breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2000; 342: 1069–1076.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Savarese DMF, Hsieh C, Stewart MF. Clinical impact of chemotherapy dose escalation in patients with hematologi-cal malignancies and solid tumors. J Clin Oncol 1997; 15: 2981–2995.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Del Mastro L, Venturini M, Lionetto R, et al. Accelerated-intensified cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and fluo-rouracil (CEF) compared with standard CEF in metastatic breast cancer: results of a multicenter, randomized phase III study of the Italian Groppo Oncologico Nord-Ovest-Mammella Intergruppo Group. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19: 2213–2221.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar