Cargando…

Uracil-tegafur and tamoxifen vs cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, fluorouracil, and tamoxifen in post-operative adjuvant therapy for stage I, II, or IIIA lymph node-positive breast cancer: a comparative study

BACKGROUND: It has been reported that treatment with uracil-tegafur (UFT) has shown significantly better survival and relapse-free survival (RFS) than surgery alone. Therefore, we compared UFT with a combination therapy of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) in patients who had un...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Park, Y, Okamura, K, Mitsuyama, S, Saito, T, Koh, J, Kyono, S, Higaki, K, Ogita, M, Asaga, T, Inaji, H, Komichi, H, Kohno, N, Yamazaki, K, Tanaka, F, Ito, T, Nishikawa, H, Osaki, A, Koyama, H, Suzuki, T
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group 2009
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2736822/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19638976
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6605218
_version_ 1782171363235069952
author Park, Y
Okamura, K
Mitsuyama, S
Saito, T
Koh, J
Kyono, S
Higaki, K
Ogita, M
Asaga, T
Inaji, H
Komichi, H
Kohno, N
Yamazaki, K
Tanaka, F
Ito, T
Nishikawa, H
Osaki, A
Koyama, H
Suzuki, T
author_facet Park, Y
Okamura, K
Mitsuyama, S
Saito, T
Koh, J
Kyono, S
Higaki, K
Ogita, M
Asaga, T
Inaji, H
Komichi, H
Kohno, N
Yamazaki, K
Tanaka, F
Ito, T
Nishikawa, H
Osaki, A
Koyama, H
Suzuki, T
author_sort Park, Y
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: It has been reported that treatment with uracil-tegafur (UFT) has shown significantly better survival and relapse-free survival (RFS) than surgery alone. Therefore, we compared UFT with a combination therapy of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) in patients who had undergone curative surgery for axillary lymph node-positive breast cancer. METHODS: A total of 377 node-positive patients with stage I, II, or IIIA disease were registered from September 1996 through July 2000 and were randomly assigned to either 6 cycles of CMF or 2 years of UFT. In both arms, tamoxifen (TAM) was concurrently administered for 2 years. The primary end point in this study was the non-inferiority of UFT to CMF. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference between the two groups was observed with regard to the 5-year RFS rate (72.2% in the UFT and 76.3% in the CMF). Adverse event profiles differed between the two groups, with a significantly lower incidence of leukopenia and anaemia in the UFT group, as well as anorexia, nausea/vomiting, stomatitis, and alopecia, which have implications for quality of life. CONCLUSION: UFT administered in combination with TAM holds promise in the treatment of lymph node-positive early breast cancer. On stratified analysis, the recurrence rate in the UFT group was found to be better in oestrogen receptor (ER)-positive patients. Tegafur-based treatment should be evaluated by a prospective randomised trial conducted in ER-positive patients.
format Text
id pubmed-2736822
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2009
publisher Nature Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-27368222010-08-18 Uracil-tegafur and tamoxifen vs cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, fluorouracil, and tamoxifen in post-operative adjuvant therapy for stage I, II, or IIIA lymph node-positive breast cancer: a comparative study Park, Y Okamura, K Mitsuyama, S Saito, T Koh, J Kyono, S Higaki, K Ogita, M Asaga, T Inaji, H Komichi, H Kohno, N Yamazaki, K Tanaka, F Ito, T Nishikawa, H Osaki, A Koyama, H Suzuki, T Br J Cancer Clinical Study BACKGROUND: It has been reported that treatment with uracil-tegafur (UFT) has shown significantly better survival and relapse-free survival (RFS) than surgery alone. Therefore, we compared UFT with a combination therapy of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) in patients who had undergone curative surgery for axillary lymph node-positive breast cancer. METHODS: A total of 377 node-positive patients with stage I, II, or IIIA disease were registered from September 1996 through July 2000 and were randomly assigned to either 6 cycles of CMF or 2 years of UFT. In both arms, tamoxifen (TAM) was concurrently administered for 2 years. The primary end point in this study was the non-inferiority of UFT to CMF. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference between the two groups was observed with regard to the 5-year RFS rate (72.2% in the UFT and 76.3% in the CMF). Adverse event profiles differed between the two groups, with a significantly lower incidence of leukopenia and anaemia in the UFT group, as well as anorexia, nausea/vomiting, stomatitis, and alopecia, which have implications for quality of life. CONCLUSION: UFT administered in combination with TAM holds promise in the treatment of lymph node-positive early breast cancer. On stratified analysis, the recurrence rate in the UFT group was found to be better in oestrogen receptor (ER)-positive patients. Tegafur-based treatment should be evaluated by a prospective randomised trial conducted in ER-positive patients. Nature Publishing Group 2009-08-18 2009-07-28 /pmc/articles/PMC2736822/ /pubmed/19638976 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6605218 Text en Copyright © 2009 Cancer Research UK https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material.If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Clinical Study
Park, Y
Okamura, K
Mitsuyama, S
Saito, T
Koh, J
Kyono, S
Higaki, K
Ogita, M
Asaga, T
Inaji, H
Komichi, H
Kohno, N
Yamazaki, K
Tanaka, F
Ito, T
Nishikawa, H
Osaki, A
Koyama, H
Suzuki, T
Uracil-tegafur and tamoxifen vs cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, fluorouracil, and tamoxifen in post-operative adjuvant therapy for stage I, II, or IIIA lymph node-positive breast cancer: a comparative study
title Uracil-tegafur and tamoxifen vs cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, fluorouracil, and tamoxifen in post-operative adjuvant therapy for stage I, II, or IIIA lymph node-positive breast cancer: a comparative study
title_full Uracil-tegafur and tamoxifen vs cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, fluorouracil, and tamoxifen in post-operative adjuvant therapy for stage I, II, or IIIA lymph node-positive breast cancer: a comparative study
title_fullStr Uracil-tegafur and tamoxifen vs cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, fluorouracil, and tamoxifen in post-operative adjuvant therapy for stage I, II, or IIIA lymph node-positive breast cancer: a comparative study
title_full_unstemmed Uracil-tegafur and tamoxifen vs cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, fluorouracil, and tamoxifen in post-operative adjuvant therapy for stage I, II, or IIIA lymph node-positive breast cancer: a comparative study
title_short Uracil-tegafur and tamoxifen vs cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, fluorouracil, and tamoxifen in post-operative adjuvant therapy for stage I, II, or IIIA lymph node-positive breast cancer: a comparative study
title_sort uracil-tegafur and tamoxifen vs cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, fluorouracil, and tamoxifen in post-operative adjuvant therapy for stage i, ii, or iiia lymph node-positive breast cancer: a comparative study
topic Clinical Study
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2736822/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19638976
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6605218
work_keys_str_mv AT parky uraciltegafurandtamoxifenvscyclophosphamidemethotrexatefluorouracilandtamoxifeninpostoperativeadjuvanttherapyforstageiiioriiialymphnodepositivebreastcanceracomparativestudy
AT okamurak uraciltegafurandtamoxifenvscyclophosphamidemethotrexatefluorouracilandtamoxifeninpostoperativeadjuvanttherapyforstageiiioriiialymphnodepositivebreastcanceracomparativestudy
AT mitsuyamas uraciltegafurandtamoxifenvscyclophosphamidemethotrexatefluorouracilandtamoxifeninpostoperativeadjuvanttherapyforstageiiioriiialymphnodepositivebreastcanceracomparativestudy
AT saitot uraciltegafurandtamoxifenvscyclophosphamidemethotrexatefluorouracilandtamoxifeninpostoperativeadjuvanttherapyforstageiiioriiialymphnodepositivebreastcanceracomparativestudy
AT kohj uraciltegafurandtamoxifenvscyclophosphamidemethotrexatefluorouracilandtamoxifeninpostoperativeadjuvanttherapyforstageiiioriiialymphnodepositivebreastcanceracomparativestudy
AT kyonos uraciltegafurandtamoxifenvscyclophosphamidemethotrexatefluorouracilandtamoxifeninpostoperativeadjuvanttherapyforstageiiioriiialymphnodepositivebreastcanceracomparativestudy
AT higakik uraciltegafurandtamoxifenvscyclophosphamidemethotrexatefluorouracilandtamoxifeninpostoperativeadjuvanttherapyforstageiiioriiialymphnodepositivebreastcanceracomparativestudy
AT ogitam uraciltegafurandtamoxifenvscyclophosphamidemethotrexatefluorouracilandtamoxifeninpostoperativeadjuvanttherapyforstageiiioriiialymphnodepositivebreastcanceracomparativestudy
AT asagat uraciltegafurandtamoxifenvscyclophosphamidemethotrexatefluorouracilandtamoxifeninpostoperativeadjuvanttherapyforstageiiioriiialymphnodepositivebreastcanceracomparativestudy
AT inajih uraciltegafurandtamoxifenvscyclophosphamidemethotrexatefluorouracilandtamoxifeninpostoperativeadjuvanttherapyforstageiiioriiialymphnodepositivebreastcanceracomparativestudy
AT komichih uraciltegafurandtamoxifenvscyclophosphamidemethotrexatefluorouracilandtamoxifeninpostoperativeadjuvanttherapyforstageiiioriiialymphnodepositivebreastcanceracomparativestudy
AT kohnon uraciltegafurandtamoxifenvscyclophosphamidemethotrexatefluorouracilandtamoxifeninpostoperativeadjuvanttherapyforstageiiioriiialymphnodepositivebreastcanceracomparativestudy
AT yamazakik uraciltegafurandtamoxifenvscyclophosphamidemethotrexatefluorouracilandtamoxifeninpostoperativeadjuvanttherapyforstageiiioriiialymphnodepositivebreastcanceracomparativestudy
AT tanakaf uraciltegafurandtamoxifenvscyclophosphamidemethotrexatefluorouracilandtamoxifeninpostoperativeadjuvanttherapyforstageiiioriiialymphnodepositivebreastcanceracomparativestudy
AT itot uraciltegafurandtamoxifenvscyclophosphamidemethotrexatefluorouracilandtamoxifeninpostoperativeadjuvanttherapyforstageiiioriiialymphnodepositivebreastcanceracomparativestudy
AT nishikawah uraciltegafurandtamoxifenvscyclophosphamidemethotrexatefluorouracilandtamoxifeninpostoperativeadjuvanttherapyforstageiiioriiialymphnodepositivebreastcanceracomparativestudy
AT osakia uraciltegafurandtamoxifenvscyclophosphamidemethotrexatefluorouracilandtamoxifeninpostoperativeadjuvanttherapyforstageiiioriiialymphnodepositivebreastcanceracomparativestudy
AT koyamah uraciltegafurandtamoxifenvscyclophosphamidemethotrexatefluorouracilandtamoxifeninpostoperativeadjuvanttherapyforstageiiioriiialymphnodepositivebreastcanceracomparativestudy
AT suzukit uraciltegafurandtamoxifenvscyclophosphamidemethotrexatefluorouracilandtamoxifeninpostoperativeadjuvanttherapyforstageiiioriiialymphnodepositivebreastcanceracomparativestudy