Patient treatment preference in advanced breast cancer: A randomized cross-over study of doxorubicin and mitozantrone

Advanced breast cancer: A randomized study of doxorubicin or mitoxantrone in combination with cyclophosphamide and vincristine

“…None of the studies described in the literature have shown a survival or time to failure difference between doxorubicin and mitoxantrone, either as single agent or in combination. In a small study carried out by Stuart-Harris et al [18], in which patients crossed over after the first cycle, the numbers were insufficient to demonstrate a difference in toxicity, but patients exhibited a strong preference for the mitoxantrone-containing arm (p < 0.007), although for the purposes of that study they were asked to assume equivalent efficacy.…”

Advanced breast cancer: A randomized study of doxorubicin or mitoxantrone in combination with cyclophosphamide and vincristine

“…None of the studies described in the literature have shown a survival or time to failure difference between doxorubicin and mitoxantrone, either as single agent or in combination. In a small study carried out by Stuart-Harris et al [18], in which patients crossed over after the first cycle, the numbers were insufficient to demonstrate a difference in toxicity, but patients exhibited a strong preference for the mitoxantrone-containing arm (p < 0.007), although for the purposes of that study they were asked to assume equivalent efficacy.…”

Toward Incorporating Health-Related Quality of Life as Coprimary End Points in Clinical Trials: Time to Achieve Clinical Important Differences and QoL Profiles

“…Typically, plots of average QoL domain scores, together with error bars, are presented, [5][6][7] or comparisons between interventions within/across QoL domains at different time points are made to contrast QoL outcomes across groups of interest. [7][8][9] Additionally, methods such as qualityadjusted time without symptoms or toxicity, 10,11 quality-adjusted progression-free and overall survival, 11,12 and patient preferences with respect to choice of therapy [13][14][15] aim to integrate QoL with treatment outcomes. Other approaches include time to QoL deterioration/benefit where attaining or exceeding minimum clinically important difference (MCID) or threshold of QoL changes from baseline is defined as an event and the time to event is represented by Kaplan-Meier curves, compared using log-rank tests or proportional hazards (PH) modeling.…”

Chemotherapy-Related Nausea and Vomiting: Etiology and Management

“…5 •¿ When given a choice between two chemotherapeutic regimens with equal ef ficacy, patients overwhelmingly choose the one that produces less nausea and vomit ing. 6 •¿ The side effects of nausea and vomiting present a significant challenge in both the completion ‘¿ of and the interpretation of the results of randomized clinical trials of chemotherapy agents. 7 Adequate management of nausea and vomiting is increasingly seen as an impor tant consideration in the treatment of cancer patients.…”

Advanced breast cancer: A randomized study of doxorubicin or mitoxantrone in combination with cyclophosphamide and vincristine

“…None of the studies described in the literature have shown a survival or time to failure difference between doxorubicin and mitoxantrone, either as single agent or in combination. In a small study carried out by Stuart-Harris et al [18], in which patients crossed over after the first cycle, the numbers were insufficient to demonstrate a difference in toxicity, but patients exhibited a strong preference for the mitoxantrone-containing arm (p < 0.007), although for the purposes of that study they were asked to assume equivalent efficacy.…”

Toward Incorporating Health-Related Quality of Life as Coprimary End Points in Clinical Trials: Time to Achieve Clinical Important Differences and QoL Profiles

“…Typically, plots of average QoL domain scores, together with error bars, are presented, [5][6][7] or comparisons between interventions within/across QoL domains at different time points are made to contrast QoL outcomes across groups of interest. [7][8][9] Additionally, methods such as qualityadjusted time without symptoms or toxicity, 10,11 quality-adjusted progression-free and overall survival, 11,12 and patient preferences with respect to choice of therapy [13][14][15] aim to integrate QoL with treatment outcomes. Other approaches include time to QoL deterioration/benefit where attaining or exceeding minimum clinically important difference (MCID) or threshold of QoL changes from baseline is defined as an event and the time to event is represented by Kaplan-Meier curves, compared using log-rank tests or proportional hazards (PH) modeling.…”

Chemotherapy-Related Nausea and Vomiting: Etiology and Management

“…5 •¿ When given a choice between two chemotherapeutic regimens with equal ef ficacy, patients overwhelmingly choose the one that produces less nausea and vomit ing. 6 •¿ The side effects of nausea and vomiting present a significant challenge in both the completion ‘¿ of and the interpretation of the results of randomized clinical trials of chemotherapy agents. 7 Adequate management of nausea and vomiting is increasingly seen as an impor tant consideration in the treatment of cancer patients.…”

Advanced breast cancer: A randomized study of doxorubicin or mitoxantrone in combination with cyclophosphamide and vincristine

“…None of the studies described in the literature have shown a survival or time to failure difference between doxorubicin and mitoxantrone, either as single agent or in combination. In a small study carried out by Stuart-Harris et al [18], in which patients crossed over after the first cycle, the numbers were insufficient to demonstrate a difference in toxicity, but patients exhibited a strong preference for the mitoxantrone-containing arm (p < 0.007), although for the purposes of that study they were asked to assume equivalent efficacy.…”

Toward Incorporating Health-Related Quality of Life as Coprimary End Points in Clinical Trials: Time to Achieve Clinical Important Differences and QoL Profiles

“…Typically, plots of average QoL domain scores, together with error bars, are presented, [5][6][7] or comparisons between interventions within/across QoL domains at different time points are made to contrast QoL outcomes across groups of interest. [7][8][9] Additionally, methods such as qualityadjusted time without symptoms or toxicity, 10,11 quality-adjusted progression-free and overall survival, 11,12 and patient preferences with respect to choice of therapy [13][14][15] aim to integrate QoL with treatment outcomes. Other approaches include time to QoL deterioration/benefit where attaining or exceeding minimum clinically important difference (MCID) or threshold of QoL changes from baseline is defined as an event and the time to event is represented by Kaplan-Meier curves, compared using log-rank tests or proportional hazards (PH) modeling.…”

Chemotherapy-Related Nausea and Vomiting: Etiology and Management

“…5 •¿ When given a choice between two chemotherapeutic regimens with equal ef ficacy, patients overwhelmingly choose the one that produces less nausea and vomit ing. 6 •¿ The side effects of nausea and vomiting present a significant challenge in both the completion ‘¿ of and the interpretation of the results of randomized clinical trials of chemotherapy agents. 7 Adequate management of nausea and vomiting is increasingly seen as an impor tant consideration in the treatment of cancer patients.…”