4.7 Article

tAnGo:: a randomised phase III trial of gemcitabine in paclitaxel-containing, epirubicin/cyclophosphamide-based, adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer:: a prospective pulmonary, cardiac and hepatic function evaluation

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 99, 期 4, 页码 597-603

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6604538

关键词

breast cancer; adjuvant chemotherapy; pulmonary; toxicity

类别

资金

  1. National Institute for Health Research [NF-SI-0507-10244] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

tAnGo is a large randomised trial assessing the addition of gemcitabine(G) to paclitaxel(T), following epirubicin(E) and cyclophosphamide(C) in women with invasive higher risk early breast cancer. To assess the safety and tolerability of adding G, a detailed safety substudy was undertaken. A total of 135 patients had cardiac, pulmonary and hepatic function assessed at (i) randomisation, (ii) mid-chemotherapy, (iii) immediately post-chemotherapy and (iv) 6 months post-chemotherapy. Skin toxicity was assessed during radiotherapy. No differences were detected in FEV1 or FVC levels between treatment arms or time points. Diffusion capacity (TLCO) reduced during treatment (P < 0.0001), with a significantly lower drop in EC-GT patients (P=0.02). Most of the reduction occurred during EC and recovered by 6-months post treatment. There was no difference in cardiac function between treatment arms. Only 11 patients had echocardiography/MUGA results change from normal to abnormal during treatment, with only five having LVEF < 50%. Transient transaminitis occurred in both treatment arms with significantly more in EC-GT patients post-chemotherapy (AST P=0.03, ALT P=0.003), although the majority was low grade. There was no correlation between transaminitis and other toxicities. Both treatment regimens reported temporary reductions in pulmonary functions and transient transaminitis levels. Despite these being greater with EC-GT, both regimens appear well tolerated.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据