Tamoxifen and chemotherapy for lymph node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer

被引:371
|
作者
Fisher, B
Dignam, J
Wolmark, N
DeCillis, A
Emir, B
Wickerham, DL
Bryant, J
Dimitrov, NV
Abramson, N
Atkins, JN
Shibata, H
Deschenes, L
Margolese, RG
机构
[1] UNIV PITTSBURGH, NATL SURG ADJUVANT BREAST & BOWEL PROJECT, DEPT BIOSTAT, PITTSBURGH, PA 15260 USA
[2] ALLEGHENY GEN HOSP, NSABP, PITTSBURGH, PA 15212 USA
[3] MICHIGAN STATE UNIV, NSABP, E LANSING, MI 48824 USA
[4] BAPTIST REG CANC INST, NSABP, JACKSONVILLE, FL USA
[5] SE CANC CONTROL CONSORTIUM, COMMUNITY CLIN ONCOL PROGRAM, NSABP, WINSTON SALEM, NC USA
[6] ROYAL VICTORIA HOSP, NSABP, MONTREAL, PQ H3A 1A1, CANADA
[7] ST SACREMENT HOSP, NSABP, QUEBEC CITY, PQ, CANADA
[8] MCGILL UNIV, JEWISH GEN HOSP, NSABP, MONTREAL, PQ H3T 1E2, CANADA
来源
关键词
D O I
10.1093/jnci/89.22.1673
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Background: The B-20 study of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) was conducted to determine whether chemotherapy plus tamoxifen would be of greater benefit than tamoxifen alone in the treatment of patients with axillary lymph node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Methods: Eligible patients (n = 2306) were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups following surgery. A total of 771 patients with followup data received tamoxifen alone; 767 received methotrexate, fluorouracil, and tamoxifen (MFT); and 768 received cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, fluorouracil, and tamoxifen (CMFT). The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate disease-free survival, distant disease-free survival, and survival. Reported P values are two-sided. Results: Through 5 years of follow-up, chemotherapy plus tamoxifen resulted in significantly better disease-free survival than tamoxifen alone (90% for MFT versus 85% for tamoxifen [P = .01]; 89% for CMFT versus 85% for tamoxifen [P = .001]). A similar benefit was observed in both distant disease-free survival (92% for MFT versus 87% for tamoxifen [P = .008]; 91% for CMFT versus 87% for tamoxifen [P = .006]) and survival (97% for MFT versus 94% for tamoxifen [P = .05]; 96% for CMFT versus 94% for tamoxifen [P = .03]). Compared with tamoxifen alone, MFT and CMFT reduced the risk of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence after lumpectomy and the risk of recurrence at other local, regional, and distant sites. Risk of treatment failure was reduced after both types of chemotherapy, regardless of tumor size, tumor estrogen or progesterone receptor level, or patient age; however, the reduction was greatest in patients aged 49 years or less. No subgroup of patients evaluated in this study failed to benefit from chemotherapy. Conclusions: Findings from this and other NSABP studies indicate that patients with breast cancer who meet NSABP protocol criteria, regardless of age, lymph node status, tumor size, or estrogen receptor status, are candidates for chemotherapy.
引用
收藏
页码:1673 / 1682
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [2] Tamoxifen and chemotherapy for lymph node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer - Response
    Dignam, J
    Fisher, B
    JNCI-JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 1998, 90 (06): : 468 - 469
  • [3] Chemotherapy Use for Hormone Receptor-Positive, Lymph Node-Negative Breast Cancer
    Hassett, Michael J.
    Hughes, Melissa E.
    Niland, Joyce C.
    Edge, Stephen B.
    Theriault, Richard L.
    Wong, Yu-Ning
    Wilson, John
    Carter, W. Bradford
    Blayney, Douglas W.
    Weeks, Jane C.
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2008, 26 (34) : 5553 - 5560
  • [4] Effect of tamoxifen after chemotherapy in hormone receptor-positive, node-negative breast cancer
    Panasci, LC
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2006, 24 (15) : 2392 - 2392
  • [5] Gene expression and benefit of chemotherapy in women with node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer
    Paik, Soonmyung
    Tang, Gong
    Shak, Steven
    Kim, Chungyeul
    Baker, Joffre
    Kim, Wanseop
    Cronin, Maureen
    Baehner, Frederick L.
    Watson, Drew
    Bryant, John
    Costantino, Joseph P.
    Geyer, Charles E., Jr.
    Wickerham, D. Lawrence
    Wolmark, Norman
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2006, 24 (23) : 3726 - 3734
  • [6] Chemotherapy use for hormone receptor-positive, node-negative breast cancer
    Hassett, M. J.
    Hughes, M. E.
    Niland, J. C.
    Edge, S. B.
    Theriault, R. L.
    Wong, Y.
    Wilson, J.
    Carter, B. W.
    Blayney, D. W.
    Weeks, J. C.
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2007, 25 (18)
  • [7] Four miRNAs associated with aggressiveness of lymph node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive human breast cancer
    Foekens, John A.
    Sieuwerts, Anieta M.
    Smid, Marcel
    Look, Maxime P.
    de Weerd, Vanja
    Boersma, Antonius W. M.
    Klijn, Jan G. M.
    Wiemer, Erik A. C.
    Martens, John W. M.
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 2008, 105 (35) : 13021 - 13026
  • [8] 21-Gene recurrence score and locoregional recurrence in lymph node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer
    Gulisa Turashvili
    Joanne F. Chou
    Edi Brogi
    Monica Morrow
    Maura Dickler
    Larry Norton
    Clifford Hudis
    Hannah Y. Wen
    Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, 2017, 166 : 69 - 76
  • [9] The financial burden of using Oncotype Dx for patients with lymph node-negative and estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer in Australia
    Sakata, Shinichiro
    Cronk, Michelle
    ASIA-PACIFIC JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2014, 10 (01) : 94 - 95
  • [10] 21-Gene recurrence score and locoregional recurrence in lymph node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer
    Turashvili, Gulisa
    Chou, Joanne F.
    Brogi, Edi
    Morrow, Monica
    Dickler, Maura
    Norton, Larry
    Hudis, Clifford
    Wen, Hannah Y.
    BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT, 2017, 166 (01) : 69 - 76