The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Multicenter, randomized comparative study of two doses of paclitaxel in patients with metastatic breast cancer.
Abstract
PURPOSE AND METHODS: The objective of this multicenter study was to compare the therapeutic index of two different doses of paclitaxel given as a 3-hour infusion in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC), who had failed to respond to previous chemotherapy. A total of 471 patients with MBC were randomized to receive intravenous paclitaxel at a dose of 175 or 135 mg/m2 every 3 weeks. RESULTS: Better treatment results were achieved with high-dose (HD) versus low-dose (LD) paclitaxel: overall response rate, 29% versus 22% (P = .108); complete response (CR) rate, 5% versus 2% (P = .088); median time to disease progression, 4.2 versus 3.0 months (P = .027); and median survival time, 11.7 versus 10.5 months (P = .321). Patients previously exposed or resistant to anthracyclines were as likely to respond as those without such prior exposure. Treatment was well tolerated, as documented by the number of administered treatment courses (median, six v five; range, one 17 v one to 18), the low frequency of dose reductions (14% v 7%, P = .024), and the small number of patients (n = 9 or 4% vn = 5 or 2%) who required treatment discontinuation for adverse reactions. The incidence and severity of neutropenia and peripheral neuropathy were dose-related. After quality-of-life-adjusted time-to-progression analysis, the HD arm (175 mg/m2) retained its advantage over the LD arm (135 mg/m2). CONCLUSION: The results of this trial substantiate the activity of paclitaxel in the treatment of MBC. The observed superior efficacy with a dose of 175 mg/m2 over 135 mg/m2 suggests a dose-effect relationship. The clinical activity in anthracycline-resistant patients is particularly noteworthy. Paclitaxel in breast cancer needs further evaluation in large trials that use combination chemotherapy and involve earlier disease stages.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Seidman, A. D., Berry, D., Cirrincione, C., Harris, L., Muss, H., Marcom, P. K., Gipson, G., Burstein, H., Lake, D., Shapiro, C. L., et al. (2008) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2007.11.6699 · Cited by 594
Lee, K. S., Chung, H. C., Im, S. A., Park, Y. H., Kim, C. S., Kim, S.-B., Rha, S. Y., Lee, M. Y., & Ro, J. (2008) · Breast Cancer Research and Treatment · doi:10.1007/s10549-007-9591-y · Cited by 541
Giaccone, G., Splinter, T. A., Debruyne, C., Kho, G. S., Lianes, P., van Zandwijk, N., Pennucci, M. C., Scagliotti, G., van Meerbeeck, J., van Hoesel, Q., et al. (1998) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.1998.16.6.2133 · Cited by 275
RCT of a psychological intervention for patients with cancer: I. Mechanisms of change.
Andersen, B. L., Shelby, R. A., & Golden-Kreutz, D. M. (2007) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.75.6.927 · Cited by 76
Dranitsaris, G., Leung, P., Mather, J., & Oza, A. (2000) · Anti-Cancer Drugs · doi:10.1097/00001813-200008000-00012 · Cited by 38
Metadata
- Authors
- Nabholtz, J. M., Gelmon, K., Bontenbal, M., Spielmann, M., Catimel, G., Conte, P., Klaassen, U., Namer, M., Bonneterre, J., Fumoleau, P., & Winograd, B.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Published
- 1996-06
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1858-1867
- ISSN
- 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
- 1527-7755
- OpenAlex
- W2133243551
- Cited by
- 380
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 10.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Multicenter, randomized comparative study of two doses of paclitaxel in patients with metastatic breast cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.1996.14.6.1858
- The paper
- Nabholtz, J. M., Gelmon, K., Bontenbal, M., Spielmann, M., Catimel, G., Conte, P., Klaassen, U., Namer, M., Bonneterre, J., Fumoleau, P., & Winograd, B. (1996). Multicenter, randomized comparative study of two doses of paclitaxel in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.1996.14.6.1858
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.