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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |