4.7 Article

Persistence, adherence, and toxicity with oral CMF in older women with early-stage breast cancer (Adherence Companion Study 60104 for CALGB 49907)

Journal

ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY
Volume 23, Issue 12, Pages 3075-3081

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mds133

Keywords

antineoplastic combined chemotherapy protocols; breast neoplasms; geriatrics; medication adherence; patient compliance; toxicity

Categories

Funding

  1. University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma, [CA37447]
  2. Christiana Care Health Services, Inc., CCOP, Wilmington [CA45418]
  3. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston [CA32291]
  4. Dartmouth Medical School - Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Lebanon [CA04326]
  5. Duke University Medical Center, Durham [CA47577]
  6. Hematology-Oncology Associates of Central New York CCOP, Syracuse [CA45389]
  7. Illinois Oncology Research Association, Peoria [CA35113]
  8. Long Island Jewish Medical Center, Lake Success [CA35279]
  9. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York [CA77651]
  10. Missouri Baptist Medical Center, St Louis [CA114558-02]
  11. Mount Sinai Medical Center, Miami [CA45564]
  12. Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York [CA04457]
  13. North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System, New Hyde Park [CA35279]
  14. Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium CCOP, South Bend [CA86726]
  15. Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo [CA59518]
  16. Southeast Cancer Control Consortium, Inc. [CA45808]
  17. State University of New York Upstate Medical University [CA21060]
  18. The Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus [CA77658]
  19. University of California at San Diego, San Diego [CA11789]
  20. University of Chicago, Chicago [CA41287]
  21. University of Maryland Greenebaum Cancer Center, Baltimore [CA31983]
  22. University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester [CA37135]
  23. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis [CA16450]
  24. University of Missouri/Ellis Fischel Cancer Center [CA12046]
  25. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill [CA47559]
  26. University of Vermont, Burlington, VT-Steven [CA77406]
  27. Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis [CA77440]
  28. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, Philadelphia [CA21115]
  29. Southwest Oncology Group, San Antonio [CA32102]
  30. National Cancer Institute of Canada, Toronto [CA77202]
  31. National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health [CA32291, CA77651, CA77406, CA21115, CA32102, CA77202, CA33601, CA25224, CA105409, CA31946]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cyclophosphamide-methotrexate-5-fluorouracil (CMF) is often selected as adjuvant chemotherapy for older patients with early-stage breast cancer due to perceived superior tolerability. We sought to measure persistence with CMF, adherence to oral cyclophosphamide, and the association of these with toxic effects. CALGB 49907 was a randomized trial comparing standard chemotherapy (CMF or AC, provider/patient choice) with capecitabine in patients aged >= 65 with stage I-IIIB breast cancer. Those randomized to standard therapy and choosing CMF were prescribed oral cyclophosphamide 100 mg/m(2) for 14 consecutive days in six 28-day cycles. Persistence was defined as being prescribed six cycles of at least one of the three CMF drugs. Adherence was the number of cyclophosphamide doses that women reported they had taken divided by the number prescribed. Persistence and adherence were based on case report forms and medication calendars. Of 317 randomized to standard chemotherapy, 133 received CMF. Median age was 73 (range 65-88). Seventy-one percent submitted at least one medication calendar; 65% persisted with CMF. Non-persistence was associated with node negativity (P = 0.019), febrile neutropenia (P = 0.002), and fatigue (P = 0.044). Average adherence was 97% during prescribed cycles. Self-reported adherence to cyclophosphamide was high, but persistence was lower, which may be attributable to toxic effects.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available