TITLE:
Randomized Trial Comparing Cyclophosphamide, Methotrexate, and 5-Fluorouracil (CMF) Regimen with Rotational CMFEV Regimen (E=Epirubicin, V=Vincristine) as Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Moderate Risk Operable Breast Carcinoma
AUTHORS:
Giorgio Cocconi, Corrado Boni, Maurizio Tonato, Rodolfo Passalacqua, Mariantonietta Colozza, Anna M. Mosconi, Giancarlo Bisagni, Ermanno Rondini, Lina Rodinò, Amalia Carpi, Francesco Di Costanzo, Mauro Brugia, Giuseppe Attardo, Luigi Acito, Riccardo Rossetti, Maria Bella, Roberta Camisa, Francesco Cardinale, Beatrice Dozin
KEYWORDS:
Breast Carcinoma, Adjuvant Chemotherapy, CMF Regimen, Epirubicin, Vincristine, Second Malignancy
JOURNAL NAME:
Journal of Cancer Therapy,
Vol.2 No.3,
August
8,
2011
ABSTRACT: Objectives: The CMFEV (cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil, epirubicin, vincristine) regimen is an innovative schedule, designed by our Group, aimed at administering five partially or totally no cross-resistant cytotoxic agents in breast carcinoma. It was randomly compared to CMF (cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil) as primary treatment in operable disease and demonstrated a short-term significant increase in clinical complete response rate and a long-term significant locoregional relapse-free survival in premenopausal patients. So, it seemed worth comparing this regimen with CMF as adjuvant chemotherapy in moderate risk operable breast carcinoma. Methods: Four hundred and eighty-nine patients with stage I or II moderate risk breast carcinoma were randomized to receive CMF or CMFEV regimen for 6 cycles after surgery. Main end points were overall survival (OS), invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) and recurrence-free interval (RFI), as estimated by Kaplan-Meier analyses and log-rank tests. Results: At a median observation time of 7.3 years (range 5.4 months-10.3 years), no significant differences in OS and IDFS were observed between the two arms. Deaths from breast carcinoma were more frequent with CMF (58.5%) than with CMFEV regimen (41.7%) as well as recurrences from breast carcinoma (58.8% with CMF and 41.2% with CMFEV). These differences were not statistically significant. Conclusion: CMFEV appears more effective than CMF in preventing recurrences from primary disease in patients with moderate risk stage I-II breast carcinoma. The lack of statistical significance of the observed differences was probably due to the limited number of patients enrolled which rendered the study underpowdered.