Toxicity and health-related quality of life in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant docetaxel, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide (TAC) or 5-fluorouracil, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (FAC): impact of adding primary prophylactic granulocyte-colony stimulating factor to the TAC regimen

Martín, Miguel; Lluch, Aña; Seguí, Miguel Àngel; Ruı́z, Amparo; Ramos, Manuel; Adrover, Encarna; Rodríguez-Lescure, Álvaro; Große, R; Calvo, Lourdes; Fernández-Chacón, Concepción; Roset, Montserrat; Antón, A.; Isla, Dolores; Prado, Purificación Martínez del; Iglesias, Lara; Załuski, J.; Arcusa, Àngels; López‐Vega, José Manuel; Muñoz, Montserrat; Mel, J. R.

doi:10.1093/annonc/mdl135

Cited by 183 publications

(128 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

107

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…When comparing patients receiving docetaxel-based combination regimens, a significant reduction in the incidence of febrile neutropenia and other neutropenia-related complications was observed in patients receiving docetaxel-based combination regimens with primary prophylactic G-CSF (26,27). Recent European and American guidelines recommend the routine use of primary prophylaxis with G-CSF when using chemotherapeutic regimens associated with a risk of febrile neutropenia of ≥20%, such as DCF (28,29).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative analysis of the efficacy and safety of modified FOLFOX-6 and DCF regimens as first-line treatment in advanced gastric cancer

Hacıbekiroğlu

Kodaz

Erdoğan

et al. 2015

Molecular and Clinical Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

5-FU on days 1-5) every 21 days, whereas 54 patients received mFOLFOX-6 (85 mg/m 2 oxaliplatin and 400 mg/m 2 LV as a 2-h infusion, followed by a 5-FU bolus of 400 mg/m 2 and 2,400 mg/m 2 5-FU as a 46-h continuous infusion) every 14 days. In the DCF arm, 55 (76.4%) of the patients received prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), 48-72 h following completion of chemotherapy. The median follow-up of the study was 12.1 months. The overall response rate (ORR) was 37.0% for mFOLFOX-6 and 40.3% for DCF (P= 0.72). The median time to progression was 6.5 and 6.2 months in the mFOLFOX-6 and DCF arms, respectively (P= 0.70). The median overall survival was 11.4 and 13.5 months in the mFOLFOX-6 and DCF arms, respectively (P= 0.72). The rates of hematological toxicity did not differ between the two arms. However, in the subgroup analysis, grade 3-4 neutropenia and febrile neutropenia were significantly more common among patients who had not received G-CSF prophylaxis in the DCF arm. The incidence of grade 3-4 nausea/vomiting and diarrhea were significantly higher in the DCF arm. In conclusion, the present study demonstrated that the efficacy of the mFOLFOX-6 regimen was comparable to that of the DCF regimen in AGC patients. In addition, the benefit of G-CSF prophylaxis in conjunction with the DCF regimen was demonstrated.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative analysis of the efficacy and safety of modified FOLFOX-6 and DCF regimens as first-line treatment in advanced gastric cancer

Hacıbekiroğlu

Kodaz

Erdoğan

et al. 2015

Molecular and Clinical Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The base-case analysis used in this model applied a 5% discount rate, the Canadian costs for chemotherapies recommended by cco guidelines 10 , and febrile neutropenia rates based on the available tac-fac study results 17 . The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (icer) for tac compared with fac was $6,921.24/ ly gained.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We wanted to conduct an alternative analysis looking at the cost-effectiveness of tac versus fac in the context of primary g-csf prophylaxis-that is, the administration of g-csf before the occurrence of febrile neutropenia or other documented infection. To do so, we used the geicam (Grupo Español de Investigación del Cáncer de Mama) 9805 study 17 for the costing of adverse events, because we could then compare adverse events rates with and without primary prophylaxis within the context of a single study. Because the rate of febrile neutropenia in the tac group was the major driver of adverse event costs and the variable that would be affected by g-csf prophylaxis, it is important to note that the adverse event rates for grades 3 and 4 febrile neutropenia reported in the geicam study for the pre-tac and fac groups were similar to those reported in the tac-fac study 1 .…”

Section: Cost Of Primary Prophylaxis Of Febrile Neutropenia With G-csfmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost Effectiveness of tac versus fac in Adjuvant Treatment of Node-Positive Breast Cancer

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThis economic analysis aimed to determine, from the perspective of a Canadian provincial government payer, the cost-effectiveness of docetaxel (Taxotere: Sanofi-Aventis, Laval, QC) in combination with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (tac) compared with 5-fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (fac) following primary surgery for breast cancer in women with operable, axillary lymph node-positive breast cancer. MethodsA Markov model looking at two time phases-5-year treatment and long-term follow-up-was constructed. Clinical events included clinical response (based on disease-free survival and overall survival) and rates of febrile neutropenia, stomatitis, diarrhea, and infections. Health states were "no recurrence," "locoregional recurrence," "distant recurrence," and "death." Costs were based on published sources and are presented in 2006 Canadian dollars. Model inputs included chemotherapy drug acquisition costs, chemotherapy administration costs, relapse and followup costs, costs for management of adverse events, and costs for granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (g-csf) prophylaxis. A 5% discount rate was applied to costs and outcomes alike. Health utilities were obtained from published sources. ResultsFor tac as compared with fac, the incremental cost was $6921 per life-year (ly) gained and $6,848 per quality-adjusted life-year (qaly) gained. The model was robust to changes in input variables (for example, febrile neutropenia rate, utility). When g-csf and antibiotics were given prophylactically before every cycle, the incremental ratios increased to $13,183 and $13,044 respectively. ConclusionsCompared with fac, tac offered improved response at a higher cost. The cost-effectiveness ratios were low, indicating good economic value in the adjuvant setting of node-positive breast cancer patients.

show abstract

“…In our study, complete clinical and pathologic response rates were significantly higher in the TAC arm. Post chemotherapy, hematologic complications can be life-threatening (21) . Prophylactic G-CSF is administered to the patients with TAC regimen.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Study to Compare TAC versus FAC Regimen as Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Locally Advanced Breast Cancers

S¹

2018

jmscr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Toxicity and health-related quality of life in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant docetaxel, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide (TAC) or 5-fluorouracil, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (FAC): impact of adding primary prophylactic granulocyte-colony stimulating factor to the TAC regimen

Cited by 183 publications

References 17 publications

Comparative analysis of the efficacy and safety of modified FOLFOX-6 and DCF regimens as first-line treatment in advanced gastric cancer

Comparative analysis of the efficacy and safety of modified FOLFOX-6 and DCF regimens as first-line treatment in advanced gastric cancer

Cost Effectiveness of tac versus fac in Adjuvant Treatment of Node-Positive Breast Cancer

Study to Compare TAC versus FAC Regimen as Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Locally Advanced Breast Cancers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About