Indonesian
Albanian
Arabic
Armenian
Azerbaijani
Belarusian
Bengali
Bosnian
Catalan
Czech
Danish
Deutsch
Dutch
English
Estonian
Finnish
Français
Greek
Haitian Creole
Hebrew
Hindi
Hungarian
Icelandic
Indonesian
Irish
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Latvian
Lithuanian
Macedonian
Mongolian
Norwegian
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Romanian
Russian
Serbian
Slovak
Slovenian
Spanish
Swahili
Swedish
Turkish
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
Български
中文(简体)
中文(繁體)
Journal of Clinical Oncology 2009-Mar

Oral uracil and tegafur compared with classic cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, fluorouracil as postoperative chemotherapy in patients with node-negative, high-risk breast cancer: National Surgical Adjuvant Study for Breast Cancer 01 Trial.

Hanya pengguna terdaftar yang dapat menerjemahkan artikel
Masuk daftar
Tautan disimpan ke clipboard
Toru Watanabe
Muneaki Sano
Shigemitsu Takashima
Tomoki Kitaya
Yutaka Tokuda
Masataka Yoshimoto
Norio Kohno
Kazuhiko Nakagami
Hiroji Iwata
Kojiro Shimozuma

Kata kunci

Abstrak

OBJECTIVE

The primary aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of oral uracil-tegafur (UFT) with that of classical cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) given as postoperative adjuvant treatment to women with node-negative, high-risk breast cancer.

METHODS

Women with node-negative, high-risk breast cancer were randomly assigned to receive either 2 years of UFT or six cycles of CMF after surgery. The primary end point was relapse-free survival (RFS). Overall survival (OS), toxicity, and quality of life (QOL) were secondary end points. The hypothesis was that UFT was not inferior to CMF in terms of RFS.

RESULTS

Between October 1996 and April 2001, a total of 733 patients were randomly assigned to receive either treatment. The median follow-up time was 6.2 years. The RFS rates at 5 years were 88.0% in the CMF arm and 87.8% in the UFT arm. OS rates were 96.0% and 96.2%, respectively. The hazard ratios of the UFT arm relative to the CMF arm were 0.98 for RFS (95% CI, 0.66 to 1.45; P = .92) and 0.81 for OS (95% CI, 0.44 to 1.48; P = .49). The toxicity profiles differed between the two groups. The QOL scores were better for patients given UFT than those given CMF.

CONCLUSIONS

RFS and OS with oral UFT were similar to those with classical CMF. Given the higher QOL scores, oral UFT is a promising alternative to CMF for postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy in women with node-negative, high-risk breast cancer.

Bergabunglah dengan
halaman facebook kami

Database tanaman obat terlengkap yang didukung oleh sains

  • Bekerja dalam 55 bahasa
  • Pengobatan herbal didukung oleh sains
  • Pengenalan herbal melalui gambar
  • Peta GPS interaktif - beri tag herba di lokasi (segera hadir)
  • Baca publikasi ilmiah yang terkait dengan pencarian Anda
  • Cari tanaman obat berdasarkan efeknya
  • Atur minat Anda dan ikuti perkembangan berita, uji klinis, dan paten

Ketikkan gejala atau penyakit dan baca tentang jamu yang mungkin membantu, ketik jamu dan lihat penyakit dan gejala yang digunakan untuk melawannya.
* Semua informasi didasarkan pada penelitian ilmiah yang dipublikasikan

Google Play badgeApp Store badge