Cited by 291Breast Cancer Treatment StudiesMenopause: Health Impacts and TreatmentsEndometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments

Burdens and benefits of adjuvant cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil and tamoxifen for elderly patients with breast cancer: the International Breast Cancer Study Group Trial VII

Crivellari, Diana, Bonetti, Marco, Castiglione-Gertsch, Monica, Gelber, Richard D., Rudenstam, Carl-Magnus, Thürlimann, Beat, Price, Karen N., Coates, Alan S. +14 more·2000·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

PURPOSE: Information on the tolerability and efficacy of adjuvant chemoendocrine therapy for older women is limited. We studied these issues using the data collected as part of the International Breast Cancer Study Group Trial VII. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Postmenopausal women with operable, node-positive breast cancer were randomized to receive either tamoxifen alone for 5 years (306 patients) or tamoxifen plus three consecutive cycles of classical cyclophosphamide (100 mg/m 2 orally days 1 to 14), methotrexate (40 mg/m 2 intravenous days 1 and 8), and fluorouracil (600 mg/m 2 intravenous days 1 and 8) every 28 days (CMF; 302 patients). The median follow-up was 8.0 years. RESULTS: Among the 299 patients who received at least one dose of CMF, women 65 years of age or older (n = 76) had higher grades of toxicity compared with women less than 65 years old (n = 223) (P = .004). More women in the older age group compared with the younger women experienced grade 3 toxicity of any type (17% v 7%, respectively), grade 3 hematologic toxicity (9% v 5%, respectively), and grade 3 mucosal toxicity (4% v 1%, respectively). Older patients also received less than their expected CMF dose compared with younger postmenopausal women (P = .0008). The subjective burdens of treatment, however, were similar for younger and older patients based on quality-of-life measures (performance status, coping, physical well-being, mood, and appetite). For older patients, the 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rates were 63% for CMF plus tamoxifen and 61% for tamoxifen alone (hazards ratio [HR], 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65 to 1.52; P = .99). For younger patients, the corresponding 5-year DFS rates were 61% and 53% (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.91; P = .008), but the test for heterogeneity of CMF effect according to age group was not statistically significant. The reduced effectiveness of CMF among older women could not be attributed to dose reductions according to dose received. CONCLUSION: CMF tolerability and effectiveness were both reduced for older patients compared with younger postmenopausal node-positive breast cancer patients who received tamoxifen for 5 years. The development and evaluation of less toxic and more effective chemotherapy regimens are required for high-risk elderly patients.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jco.2000.18.7.1412

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 25 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Crivellari, D., Bonetti, M., Castiglione-Gertsch, M., Gelber, R. D., Rudenstam, C.-M., Thürlimann, B., Price, K. N., Coates, A. S., Hürny, C., Bernhard, J., Lindtner, J., Collins, J., Senn, H.-J., Cavalli, F., Forbes, J., Gudgeon, A., Simoncini, E., Cortes-Funes, H., Veronesi, A., Fey, M., Goldhirsch, A., & for the International Breast Cancer Study Group
Affiliations
  • University Hospital of Bern (CH)
  • From the Centro di Riferimento OncologicoAviano; Ospedali Civili and Fondazione Beretta, Brescia; and European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy; International Breast Cancer Study Group Statistical Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Frontier Science and Technology Research Foundation; and Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA; International Breast Cancer Study Group Coordinating Center; and Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research, Inselspital, Bern; Kantonsspital; Bürgerspital; and Center...
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2000-04-07
Volume
18
Issue
7
Pages
1412-1422
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2167527499
Cited by
291
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 9
FWCI
6.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Archivio istituzionale della Ricerca - Bocconi (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (CA06516, CA-75362, U24CA075362, P30CA006516)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Breast Cancer Treatment Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Menopause: Health Impacts and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Endometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
Keywords
adjuvant chemotherapy, adjuvant endocrine therapy, tamoxifen, CMF, elderly patients, older women, postmenopausal women, node-positive breast cancer, treatment toxicity, quality of life, disease-free survival, age differences in treatment response
MeSH terms
Age Factors, Aged, Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols, Breast Neoplasms, Cisplatin, Combined Modality Therapy, Female, Fluorouracil, Humans, Infusions, Intravenous, Methotrexate, Middle Aged, Tamoxifen, Chemotherapy, Adjuvant, Postmenopause, Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal

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