The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Final Results of a Randomized Phase III Trial Comparing Cyclophosphamide, Epirubicin, and Fluorouracil With a Dose-Intensified Epirubicin and Cyclophosphamide + Filgrastim as Neoadjuvant Treatment in Locally Advanced Breast Cancer: An EORTC-NCIC-SAKK Multicenter Study
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the efficacy of a standard anthracycline-based regimen to a dose-intensified anthracycline regimen in locally advanced breast cancer. Patients and Methods: Locally advanced breast cancer patients were randomly assigned onto a study comparing cyclophosphamide (C; 75 mg/m 2 orally days 1 to 14), epirubicin (E; 60 mg/m 2 intravenously [IV] days 1, 8), and fluorouracil (F; 500 mg/m 2 IV days 1, 8) six cycles every 28 days versus E (120 mg/m 2 IV day 1), C (830 mg/m 2 IV day 1), and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (filgrastim; 5 μg/kg/d subcutaneously days 2 to 13) six cycles every 14 days. The study was designed to detect a 15% improvement; that is, from 50% to 65% in median progression-free survival (PFS) in favor of the dose-intensified regimen. Results: A total of 448 patients were enrolled over a period of 3 years. The median dose intensity delivered for C and E reached, respectively, 85% and 87% of that planned in the CEF arm and 96% and 95% of that planned in the EC arm. The dose-intensified arm was slightly more emetogenic and generated more grade 3 to 4 anemia but less febrile neutropenia episodes. After a median follow-up of 5.5 years, 277 events have been reported. The median PFS was 34 and 33.7 months for CEF and EC, respectively (P = .68), and the 5-year survival rate was 53% and 51% for CEF and EC, respectively (P = .94). Conclusion: Dose-intensified EC does not provide a measurable therapeutic benefit over CEF as neoadjuvant chemotherapy for unselected locally advanced breast cancer patients.
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
Cites
Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., Bullinger, M., Cull, A., Duez, N. J., Filiberti, A., Flechtner, H., Fleishman, S. B., Haes, J. C. J. M. D., et al. (1993) · JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/85.5.365 · Cited by 16,005
Cited by
Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: Recommendations from the EUSOMA working group
Sardanelli, F., Boetes, C., Borisch, B., Decker, T., Federico, M., Gilbert, F. J., Helbich, T., Heywang-Köbrunner, S. H., Kaiser, W. A., Kerin, M. J., et al. (2010) · European Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2010.02.015 · Cited by 992
Self-citationHan, R., Yang, Y. M., Dietrich, J., Luebke, A., Mayer-Pröschel, M., & Noble, M. (2008) · Journal of Biology · doi:10.1186/jbiol69 · Cited by 316
Conforti, F., Pala, L., Sala, I., Oriecuia, C., De Pas, T., Specchia, C., Graffeo, R., Pagan, E., Queirolo, P., Pennacchioli, E., et al. (2021) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj-2021-066381 · Cited by 170
Metadata
- Authors
- Therasse, P., Mauriac, L., Welnicka-Jaskiewicz, M., Bruning, P., Cufer, T., Bonnefoi, H., Tomiak, E., Pritchard, K. I., Hamilton, A., & Piccart, M. J.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Published
- 2003-03-01
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 843-850
- ISSN
- 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
- 1527-7755
- OpenAlex
- W2164409215
- Cited by
- 224
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 5.90
- 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: Final Results of a Randomized Phase III Trial Comparing Cyclophosphamide, Epirubicin, and Fluorouracil With a Dose-Intensified Epirubicin and Cyclophosphamide + Filgrastim as Neoadjuvant Treatment in Locally Advanced Breast Cancer: An EORTC-NCIC-SAKK Multicenter Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2003.05.135
- The paper
- Therasse, P., Mauriac, L., Welnicka-Jaskiewicz, M., Bruning, P., Cufer, T., Bonnefoi, H., Tomiak, E., Pritchard, K. I., Hamilton, A., & Piccart, M. J. (2003). Final Results of a Randomized Phase III Trial Comparing Cyclophosphamide, Epirubicin, and Fluorouracil With a Dose-Intensified Epirubicin and Cyclophosphamide + Filgrastim as Neoadjuvant Treatment in Locally Advanced Breast Cancer: An EORTC-NCIC-SAKK Multicenter Study. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2003.05.135
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.