000			04790nam a22006977a 4500
008			221213s20172017 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
022			_a0732-183X
024			_a10.1200/JCO.2016.71.4147 [doi]
024			_aPMC5549453 [pmc]
040			_aOvid MEDLINE(R)
099			_a28398846
245			_aAnthracyclines in Early Breast Cancer: The ABC Trials-USOR 06-090, NSABP B-46-I/USOR 07132, and NSABP B-49 (NRG Oncology).
251			_aJournal of Clinical Oncology. 35(23):2647-2655, 2017 Aug 10.
252			_aJ Clin Oncol. 35(23):2647-2655, 2017 Aug 10.
253			_aJournal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology
260			_c2017
260			_fFY2018
260			_p2017 Aug 10
265			_sppublish
265			_tMEDLINE
266			_d2022-12-13
501			_aAvailable online from MWHC library: 1999 - present, Available in print through MWHC library: 1999 - 2008
520			_aPurpose Docetaxel and cyclophosphamide (TC) was superior to doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) in a trial in early breast cancer. However, activity of TC relative to AC regimens with a taxane (TaxAC) is unknown. Methods In a series of three adjuvant trials, women were randomly assigned to TC for six cycles (TC6) or to a standard TaxAC regimen. US Oncology Research (USOR) 06-090 compared TC6 with docetaxel, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (TAC6). National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) B-46-I/USOR 07132 compared TC6, TAC6, or TC6 plus bevacizumab. NSABP B-49 compared TC6 with several standard AC and taxane combination regimens. Before any analysis of individual trials, a joint efficacy analysis of TC versus the TaxAC regimens was planned, with invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) as the primary end point. Patients who received TC6 plus bevacizumab on NSABP B-46-I/USOR 07132 were not included. A hazard ratio (HR) from a stratified Cox model that exceeded 1.18 for TC6 versus TaxAC was predefined as inferiority for TC6. The prespecified interim monitoring plan was to report for futility if the HR was > 1.18 when 334 IDFS events were observed (50% of 668 events required for definitive analysis). Results A total of 2,125 patients were randomly assigned to receive TC6 regimens and 2,117 patients were randomly assigned to receive TaxAC regimens. The median follow-up time was 3.3 years. There were 334 IDFS events, and the HR for TC6 versus TaxAC was 1.202 (95% CI, 0.97 to 1.49), which triggered early reporting for futility. The 4-year IDFS was 88.2% for TC6 and was 90.7% for TaxAC ( P = .04). Tests for treatment interaction by protocol, hormone receptor status, and nodal status were negative. Conclusion The TaxAC regimens improved IDFS in patients with high-risk human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative breast cancer compared with the TC6 regimen.
546			_aEnglish
650			_a*Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/tu [Therapeutic Use]
650			_a*Breast Neoplasms/th [Therapy]
650			_a*Carcinoma, Ductal, Breast/th [Therapy]
650			_a*Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating/th [Therapy]
650			_aAnthracyclines/ad [Administration & Dosage]
650			_aBreast Neoplasms/ch [Chemistry]
650			_aBreast Neoplasms/pa [Pathology]
650			_aBridged-Ring Compounds/ad [Administration & Dosage]
650			_aCarcinoma, Ductal, Breast/ch [Chemistry]
650			_aCarcinoma, Ductal, Breast/sc [Secondary]
650			_aCarcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating/ch [Chemistry]
650			_aChemotherapy, Adjuvant
650			_aCyclophosphamide/ad [Administration & Dosage]
650			_aDisease-Free Survival
650			_aDocetaxel
650			_aDoxorubicin/ad [Administration & Dosage]
650			_aFemale
650			_aFollow-Up Studies
650			_aHumans
650			_aLymphatic Metastasis
650			_aMastectomy
650			_aMiddle Aged
650			_aProspective Studies
650			_aReceptor, ErbB-2/an [Analysis]
650			_aReceptors, Estrogen/an [Analysis]
650			_aReceptors, Progesterone/an [Analysis]
650			_aTaxoids/ad [Administration & Dosage]
651			_aWashington Cancer Institute
657			_aClinical Trial, Phase III
657			_aComparative Study
657			_aJournal Article
657			_aRandomized Controlled Trial
700			_aSwain, Sandra M
790			_aAsmar L, Blum JL, Brufsky AM, Colangelo LH, Dang CT, Fehrenbacher L, Flynn PJ, Geyer CE Jr, Gomez HL, Hopkins JO, Jacobs SA, Jeong JH, Jones SE, Lyss AP, Mamounas EP, O'Shaughnessy JA, Paul D, Robert NJ, Swain SM, Vukelja SJ, Wolmark N, Yothers G
856			_uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2016.71.4147 _zhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2016.71.4147
942			_cART _dArticle
999			_c5 _d5