English
Albanian
Arabic
Armenian
Azerbaijani
Belarusian
Bengali
Bosnian
Catalan
Czech
Danish
Deutsch
Dutch
English
Estonian
Finnish
Français
Greek
Haitian Creole
Hebrew
Hindi
Hungarian
Icelandic
Indonesian
Irish
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Latvian
Lithuanian
Macedonian
Mongolian
Norwegian
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Romanian
Russian
Serbian
Slovak
Slovenian
Spanish
Swahili
Swedish
Turkish
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
Български
中文(简体)
中文(繁體)
Journal of Clinical Oncology 2002-Oct

Time to progression in metastatic breast cancer patients treated with epirubicin is not improved by the addition of either cisplatin or lonidamine: final results of a phase III study with a factorial design.

Only registered users can translate articles
Log In/Sign up
The link is saved to the clipboard
Alfredo Berruti
Raffaella Bitossi
Gabriella Gorzegno
Alberto Bottini
Palmiro Alquati
Andrea De Matteis
Francesco Nuzzo
Giorgio Giardina
Saverio Danese
Mario De Lena

Keywords

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the value of the addition of either cisplatin (CDDP) or lonidamine (LND) to epirubicin (EPI) in the first-line treatment of advanced breast cancer.

METHODS

Three hundred seventy-one metastatic breast cancer patients with no prior systemic chemotherapy for advanced disease were randomized to receive either EPI alone (60 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 2 every 21 days), EPI and CDDP (30 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 2 every 21 days), EPI and LND (450 mg orally daily, given continuously), or EPI, CDDP, and LND. Time to progression, response rates, side effects, and survival were compared according to the 2 x 2 factorial design of this study.

RESULTS

The groups were well balanced with respect to prognostic factors. Time to progression did not differ in the comparison between CDDP arms and non-CDDP arms (median, 10.9 months v 9.4 months, respectively; P =.10) or between that of LND arms and non-LND arms (median, 10.8 months v 9.9 months, respectively; P =.47), nor did overall survival. The response rate did not significantly differ in the comparison between LND arms and non-LND arms (62.9% v 54.0%, P =.08). No difference in treatment activity was observed between CDDP arms and non-CDDP arms. Toxicity was significantly higher in the CDDP arms, leading to CDDP dose adjustment in 40% of cases. The most frequent side effects were of a hematologic and gastrointestinal nature. The addition of LND produced more myalgias and fatigue.

CONCLUSIONS

Neither CDDP nor LND was able to significantly improve the time to progression obtained by EPI. CDDP, however, significantly worsened the drug's tolerability.

Join our facebook page

The most complete medicinal herbs database backed by science

  • Works in 55 languages
  • Herbal cures backed by science
  • Herbs recognition by image
  • Interactive GPS map - tag herbs on location (coming soon)
  • Read scientific publications related to your search
  • Search medicinal herbs by their effects
  • Organize your interests and stay up do date with the news research, clinical trials and patents

Type a symptom or a disease and read about herbs that might help, type a herb and see diseases and symptoms it is used against.
*All information is based on published scientific research

Google Play badgeApp Store badge