Doxorubicin and Cyclophosphamide versus Cyclophosphamide, Methotrexate, and 5-Fluorouracil as Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer

REFERENCES

• Early Breast Cancer Trialists Collaborative Group. Systemic treatment of early breast cancer by hormonal, cytotoxic or im-mune therapy: 133 randomized trials involving 31,000 recurrences and 24,000 deaths among 75,000 women. Lancet 1992; 339: 71–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonadonna G, Brusamolino E, Valagussa P, Rossi A, Brug-natelli L, Brambilla C, et al. Combination chemotherapy as an adjuvant treatment in operable breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1976; 294: 405–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Misset JL, Di Palma M, Delgado M, et al: Adjuvant treat-ment of node-positive breast cancer with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, fluorouracil, and vincristine versus cyclophos-phamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil: Final report after a 16-year median follow-up duration. J Clin Oncol 1996; 14: 1136-1145.
   Google Scholar
• Levine M, Bramwell VH, Pritchard KI, et al: Randomised trial of intensive cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and fluorouracil chemotherapy compared with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and fluorouracil in premenopausal women with node-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1998; 16: 2651–2658.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisher B, Brown AM, Dimitrov NV, Poisson R, Redmond C, Margolese RG, et al. Two months of doxorubicin-cy-clophophamide with and without interval reinduction therapy compared with six months of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil in positive-node breast cancer patients with ta-moxifen-nonresponsive tumors: results from the National Surgi-cal Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-15. J Clin Oncol 1990; 8: 1483-96.
   Google Scholar
• Ploner F, Jakesz R, Hausmaninger H et al. Randomised trial: One cycle of anthracycline-containing adjuvant chemother-apy compared with six cycles of CMF treatment in node-positive, hormone receptor-negative breast cancer patients. Onkologie. 2003; 26 (2): 115–9
   Google Scholar
• Moliterni A, Bonadonna G, Valagussa P, Ferrari L, Zam-betti M. Cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil with and without doxorubicin in the adjuvant treatment of respectable breast cancer with one to three positive axillary nodes. J Clin Oncol 1991; 9: 1124-30.
   Google Scholar
• Coombes RC, Bliss JM, Wits J, Morvan F, Espie' M, Amadori P, et al. Adjuvant cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil versus 5-fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophos-phamide chemotherapy in premenopausal women with axillary node-positive operable breast cancer: results of a randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 1996; 14: 35–45.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carpenter JT, Velez-Garcia E, Aron BS, Salter M, Stahl DL, Estes N, et al. Five-year results of a randomized comparison of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and 5-fluorouracil versus cy-clophosphamide, methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil for node-pos-itive breast cancer [abstract]. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1994; 13: 68.
   Google Scholar
• Bang SM, Heo DS, Lee KH, Byun JH, Chang HM, Noh DY, et al. Adjuvant doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide versus cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and 5-fluorouracil chemother-apy in premenopausal women with axillary lymph node positive breast carcinoma. Cancer. 2000; 89 (12): 2521–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisher B, Anderson S, Tan-Chiu E, et al. Tamoxifen and chemotherapy for axillary node-negative, estrogen receptor-neg-ative breast cancer: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-23. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19 (4): 931–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisher B, Jeong JH, Anderson S et al . Treatment of ax-illary lymph node-negative breast cancer: update findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Clinical Tri-als. J Natl Cancer Inst, 2004; 96 (24): 1823–31.
   Google Scholar
• Land SR, Kopec JA, Yothers G et al. Health-related qual-ity of life in axillary lymph node-negative, estrogen receptor breast cancer patients undergoing AC versus CMF chemother-apy: findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-23. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2004; 86 (2): 153-64.
   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
• Ackland SP, Anton A, Breitbach GP et al. Dose-intensive epirubicin-based chemotherapy is superior to an intensive intra-venous cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil regi-men in metastatic breast cancer. A randomized multinational study. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19: 943–953.
   Google Scholar
• Benefit of a high-dose epirubicin regimen in adjuvant chemotherapy for node-positive breast cancer patients with poor prognostic factors:5-year follow up results of French Adjuvant Study Group 05 randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19: 602–611.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Gelber RD et al. Progress and promise: highlights of the international expert consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2007. Ann Oncol. 2007; 18 (7): 1133-44.16)
   Google Scholar
• Ejlertsen B, Mouridsen HT, Jensen MB. Adjuvant cy-clophosphamide, methotrexate and fluorouracil versus cy-clophosphamide, epirubicin and fluorouracil in pre-menopausal patients with node-positive breast cancer: indirect comparison of dose and schedule in DBCG trials 77, 82 and 89. Acta Oncol. 2008; 47 (4): 662–71.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hutchins LF, Green SJ, Ravdin PM, et al. Randomized controlled trial of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and fluo-rouracil versus cyclophosphamide, epirubicin and fluorouracil with and without tamoxifen for high-risk, node-negative breast cancer: treatment results if Intergroup Protocol INT-0102. J Clin Oncol 2001; 33: 8313-8321.
   Google Scholar
• Piccart MJ, Di Leo A, Beauduin M et al. Phase III trial comparing two dose levels of epirubicin combined with cy-clophosphamide with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and flu-orouracil in node-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2001; 19 (12): 3103–10.
   Google Scholar
• Colleoni M, Price K, Castiglione-Gertsch M et al. Dose-response effect of adjuvant cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil (CMF) in node-positive breast cancer. International Breast Cancer Study Group. Eur J Cancer. 1998; 34 (11): 1693-700.
   Google Scholar
• Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group Multi-agent chemotherapy for early breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002;(1):CD000487.
   Google Scholar
• Trudeau M, Charbonneau F, Gelmon K et al. Selection of adjuvant chemotherapy for treatment of node-positive breast can-cer. Lancet Oncol. 2005; 6 (11): 886–98.
   Google Scholar
• Amadori D, Nanni O, Volpi A et al. Phase III randomized multicenter study on the effects of adjuvant CMF in patients with node-negative, rapidly proliferating breast cancer: twelve-year results and retrospective subgroup analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008; 108 (2): 259–64.
   Google Scholar
• Weiss RB, Woolf SH, Demakos E et al. Natural history of more than 20 years of node-positive primary breast carcinoma treated with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil-based adjuvant chemotherapy: a study by the Cancer and Leukemia Group B. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21 (23): 4469.
   Google Scholar
• Colozza M, de Azambuja E, Cardoso F et al. Breast cancer: achievements in adjuvant systemic therapies in the prege-nomic era. Oncologist. 2006; 11 (2): 111–25.
   Google Scholar
• Henderson C, Berry DA, Demetri GD et al. Improved out-comes from adding sequential paclitaxel but not from escalating doxorubicin dose in an adjuvant chemotherapy regimen for Patients with node-positive primary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 976–983.
   Google Scholar
• Mamounas EP, Bryant J, Lembersky B et al. Paclitaxel after doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide as adjuvant chemother-apy for node-positive breast cancer: results from NSABP B-28. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 3686–3696.
   Google Scholar