A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Gemcitabine plus docetaxel versus docetaxel in patients with predominantly human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer: a randomized, phase III study by the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group. | LitMetric

Purpose: The objective of this phase III study was to compare the efficacy of gemcitabine plus docetaxel (GD) versus docetaxel in patients with advanced breast cancer.

Patients And Methods: Predominantly human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) -negative patients were randomly assigned to gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m(2)) on days 1 and 8 plus docetaxel (75 mg/m(2)) on day 8 or to docetaxel (100 mg/m(2)) on day 1, every 21 days. Patients were untreated or had prior (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy or a single anthracycline-based chemotherapy regimen for metastatic breast cancer. The primary end point was time to progression (TTP), and secondary end points were overall survival (OS), response rate (RR), and toxicity.

Results: A total of 170 patients were allocated to GD, and 167 were allocated to docetaxel. Median TTP on GD was 10.3 months versus 8.3 months on docetaxel (hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 95% CI, 0.59 to 1.01; log-rank P = .06). The adjusted Cox proportional model for TTP showed a significant difference favoring the combination (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.90; P = .007). However, RR was similar (GD, 36%; docetaxel, 34%), and OS was not different (P = .57). Grades 3 to 4 neutropenia was common (GD, 75%; docetaxel, 69%); infection was reported in 26% and 21% of patients in the GD and docetaxel groups, respectively. Grades 3 to 4 thrombocytopenia was more frequent with GD (GD, 16%; docetaxel, 0.6%), and peripheral neuropathy was higher with docetaxel (GD, 5%; docetaxel, 16%).

Conclusion: GD compared with docetaxel demonstrated increased TTP in metastatic breast cancer. However, RR and OS were similar. Thus, the addition of gemcitabine failed to demonstrate any clinically meaningful benefit when combined with docetaxel.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.33.9507DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

breast cancer
16
docetaxel
15
metastatic breast
12
gemcitabine docetaxel
8
docetaxel versus
8
versus docetaxel
8
docetaxel patients
8
human epidermal
8
epidermal growth
8
growth factor
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!