Skip Navigation



Annals of Oncology Advance Access published online on April 8, 2005
Annals of Oncology, doi:10.1093/annonc/mdi181
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
16/6/899    most recent
mdi181v1
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Feher, O.
Right arrow Articles by von Minckwitz, G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Feher, O.
Right arrow Articles by von Minckwitz, G.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 2005 European Society for Medical Oncology
Received August 4, 2004
Revised December 13, 2004
Accepted January 11, 2005

Original article

First-line gemcitabine versus epirubicin in postmenopausal women aged 60 or older with metastatic breast cancer: a multicenter, randomized, phase III study

O. Feher 1*, P. Vodvarka 2, J. Jassem 3, G. Morack 4, S. H. Advani 5, K. S. Khoo 6, D. C. Doval 7, S. Ermisch 8, D. Roychowdhury 8, M. A. Miller 8, and G. von Minckwitz 9

1 Hospital do Cancer, São Paulo, Brazil
2 Faculty Hospital and Policlinic Ostrava-Poruba, Czech Republic
3 Medical University of Gdansk, Poland
4 Hospital Berlin-Buch, Germany
5 Tata Memorial Hospital, India
6 National Cancer Centre, Singapore
7 Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute, India
8 Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA
9 Goethe University Women's Hospital, Frankfurt, Germany

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
O. Feher, E-mail: omfeher{at}terra.com.br


  Abstract

Background:: This randomized, phase III study compared the efficacy and safety of first-line gemcitabine versus epirubicin in the treatment of postmenopausal women with metastatic breast cancer (MBC).

Patients and methods:: Patients aged ≥ 60 years (median 68 years) with clinically measurable MBC received either gemcitabine 1200 mg/m2 or epirubicin 35 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle.

Results:: Of 410 patients entered, 397 (198 gemcitabine and 199 epirubicin) were randomized and qualified for the time to progressive disease (TTP) and survival analyses. Total cycles administered in 185 gemcitabine and 192 epirubicin patients, respectively, were 699 (mean 3.5, range 0-12) and 917 (mean 4.6, range 0-10). Epirubicin demonstrated statistically significant superiority in TTP (6.1 and 3.4 months, P=0.0001), overall survival (19.1 and 11.8 months, P=0.0004), and independently assessed response rate (40.3% and 16.4% in 186 and 183 evaluable patients, P <0.001). For gemcitabine (n=190) and epirubicin (n=192), respectively, common WHO grade 3/4 toxicities were neutropenia (25.3% and 17.9%) and leukopenia (14.3% and 19.3%). Of the 28 on-study deaths (17 gemcitabine, 11 epirubicin), three were considered possibly or probably related to treatment (gemcitabine).

Conclusions:: Postmenopausal women ≥60 years of age with MBC tolerate chemotherapy well. In this study, epirubicin was superior to gemcitabine in the treatment of MBC in women age ≥60, confirming that anthracyclines remain important drugs for first-line treatment of MBC.

Keywords: elderly patients; epirubicin; gemcitabine; metastatic breast cancer.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Ann OncolHome page
S. Beslija, J. Bonneterre, H. J. Burstein, V. Cocquyt, M. Gnant, V. Heinemann, J. Jassem, W. J. Kostler, M. Krainer, S. Menard, et al.
Third consensus on medical treatment of metastatic breast cancer
Ann. Onc., November 1, 2009; 20(11): 1771 - 1785.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Ann OncolHome page
P. A. Tang, G. R. Pond, and E. X. Chen
Influence of an independent review committee on assessment of response rate and progression-free survival in phase III clinical trials
Ann. Onc., October 29, 2009; (2009) mdp478v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Ann OncolHome page
H. Joensuu, L. Sailas, T. Alanko, K. Sunela, R. Huuhtanen, M. Utriainen, R. Kokko, P. Bono, T. Wigren, S. Pyrhonen, et al.
Docetaxel versus docetaxel alternating with gemcitabine as treatments of advanced breast cancer: final analysis of a randomised trial
Ann. Onc., October 9, 2009; (2009) mdp397v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JNCI J Natl Cancer InstHome page
D. Mauri, N. P. Polyzos, G. Salanti, N. Pavlidis, and J. P. A. Ioannidis
Multiple-Treatments Meta-analysis of Chemotherapy and Targeted Therapies in Advanced Breast Cancer
J Natl Cancer Inst, December 17, 2008; 100(24): 1780 - 1791.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JCOHome page
D. Crivellari, M. Aapro, R. Leonard, G. von Minckwitz, E. Brain, A. Goldhirsch, A. Veronesi, and H. Muss
Breast Cancer in the Elderly
J. Clin. Oncol., May 10, 2007; 25(14): 1882 - 1890.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Ann OncolHome page
D. Crivellari, D. Lombardi, G. Corona, C. Massacesi, R. Talamini, R. Sorio, M. D. Magri, C. Lestuzzi, A. Lucenti, A. Veronesi, et al.
Innovative schedule of oral idarubicin in elderly patients with metastatic breast cancer: comprehensive results of a phase II multi-institutional study with pharmacokinetic drug monitoring
Ann. Onc., May 1, 2006; 17(5): 807 - 812.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 The OncologistHome page
J. O'Shaughnessy
Extending Survival with Chemotherapy in Metastatic Breast Cancer
Oncologist, October 1, 2005; 10(suppl_3): 20 - 29.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.