Revision as of 02:15, 16 December 2021

Section editor transclusions Are you looking for a regimen, but can't find it here? It is possible that we've moved it to the historical regimens page. For placebo or observational studies in this condition, please visit this page. If you still can't find it, please let us know so we can add it!

Note: this page contains regimens which were not tested in biomarker-specific populations. The following links will take you to biomarker-specific subpages:
Regimens for ER/PR positive breast cancer are here.
Regimens for HER2 positive breast cancer are here.
Regimens for ER/HER2 co-expressing ("double positive") breast cancer are here.
Regimens for Triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) are here.
Regimens for BRCA-mutated breast cancer are here.
Regimens for PIK3CA-mutated breast cancer are here.
Regimens for CNS metastases are here.
Because docetaxel and paclitaxel are both often abbreviated as "T," we try to always make clear in the regimen name which agent is being used. For sequential protocols, we use "T" for paclitaxel and "D" for docetaxel; e.g., AC-T and AC-D.

143 regimens on this page 330 variants on this page

Guidelines

ASCO

2021: Korde et al. Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy, Endocrine Therapy, and Targeted Therapy for Breast Cancer: ASCO Guideline
2020: Denduluri et al. Selection of Optimal Adjuvant Chemotherapy and Targeted Therapy for Early Breast Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update
2020: Hassett et al. Management of Male Breast Cancer: ASCO Guideline PubMed
2016: Burstein et al. Adjuvant endocrine therapy for women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update on ovarian suppression PubMed

Older

ASCO/CCO

2017: Role of bone-modifying agents in metastatic breast cancer: an American Society of Clinical Oncology–Cancer Care Ontario focused guideline update PubMed

ESMO

2021: Gennari et al. ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for the diagnosis, staging and treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer
2019: Cardoso et al. Early breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up

Older

2015: Senkus et al. Primary breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up

ESO/ESMO

2020: Paluch-Shimon et al. ESO–ESMO 4th International Consensus Guidelines for Breast Cancer in Young Women (BCY4)
2018: Cardoso et al. 4th ESO–ESMO International Consensus Guidelines for Advanced Breast Cancer (ABC 4)

Older

2017: Cardoso et al. 3rd ESO-ESMO International consensus guidelines for advanced breast cancer (ABC3) PubMed
2014: Cardoso et al. ESO-ESMO 2nd International consensus guidelines for advanced breast cancer (ABC2)
2012: Cardoso et al. 1st International consensus guidelines for advanced breast cancer (ABC 1)

EUSOMA/SIOG

2021: Biganzoli et al. Updated recommendations regarding the management of older patients with breast cancer: a joint paper from the European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists (EUSOMA) and the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG)

Older

2012: Biganzoli et al. Management of elderly patients with breast cancer: updated recommendations of the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) and European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists (EUSOMA)
2007: Wildiers et al. Management of breast cancer in elderly individuals: recommendations of the International Society of Geriatric Oncology

KSMO/ESMO

2020: Park et al. Pan-Asian adapted ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for the management of patients with early breast cancer: a KSMO-ESMO initiative endorsed by CSCO, ISMPO, JSMO, MOS, SSO and TOS

NCCN

NCCN Guidelines - Breast Cancer

St Gallen Breast Guidelines

2021: Burstein et al. Customizing local and systemic therapies for women with early breast cancer: the St. Gallen International Consensus Guidelines for treatment of early breast cancer 2021

Older

2019: Burstein et al. Estimating the benefits of therapy for early-stage breast cancer: the St. Gallen International Consensus Guidelines for the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2019
2017: Curigliano et al. St. Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2017
2015: Coates et al. Tailoring therapies—improving the management of early breast cancer: St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2015

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy

AC-D

back to top

AC-D: Adriamycin (Doxorubicin) & Cyclophosphamide followed by Docetaxel

Protocol #1, 60/600/75

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Kim et al. 2020 (NEST)	2012-2014	Phase 3 (C)	Goserelin & Tamoxifen	Inconclusive whether non-inferior clinical response

Chemotherapy, AC portion

Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 60 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 4 cycles, followed by:

Chemotherapy, T portion

Docetaxel (Taxotere) 75 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 4 cycles

Subsequent treatment

Surgery

Protocol #2, 60/600/100

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
von Minckwitz et al. 2005 (GeparDuo)	1999-2001	Phase 3 (E-esc)	Dose-dense Docetaxel & Doxorubicin (ddAT)	Superior pCR rate

Chemotherapy, AC portion

Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 60 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 4 cycles, followed by:

Chemotherapy, T portion

Docetaxel (Taxotere) 100 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 4 cycles

Subsequent treatment

Surgery

References

GeparDuo: von Minckwitz G, Raab G, Caputo A, Schütte M, Hilfrich J, Blohmer JU, Gerber B, Costa SD, Merkle E, Eidtmann H, Lampe D, Jackisch C, du Bois A, Kaufmann M; GBG. Doxorubicin with cyclophosphamide followed by docetaxel every 21 days compared with doxorubicin and docetaxel every 14 days as preoperative treatment in operable breast cancer: the GEPARDUO study of the German Breast Group. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Apr 20;23(12):2676-85. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00793377
NEST: Kim HJ, Noh WC, Lee ES, Jung YS, Kim LS, Han W, Nam SJ, Gong G-, Kim HJ, Ahn SH. Efficacy of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy compared with neoadjuvant chemotherapy in pre-menopausal patients with oestrogen receptor-positive and HER2-negative, lymph node-positive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 2020 May 27;22(1):54. link to original article link to PMC article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT01622361

AC-T

back to top

AC-T: Adriamycin (Doxorubicin) & Cyclophosphamide followed by Taxol (Paclitaxel)

Protocol

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Ellis et al. 2011 (SWOG 0012)	2001-2005	Phase 3 (C)	AC-T; daily cyclophosphamide	Did not meet primary endpoint of pCR rate

Chemotherapy, AC portion

Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 60 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 5 cycles, followed by:

Chemotherapy, T portion

Paclitaxel (Taxol) 80 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1, 8, 15

21-day cycle for 4 cycles

Subsequent treatment

Surgery

References

SWOG 0012: Ellis GK, Barlow WE, Gralow JR, Hortobagyi GN, Russell CA, Royce ME, Perez EA, Lew D, Livingston RB. Phase III comparison of standard doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide versus weekly doxorubicin and daily oral cyclophosphamide plus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor as neoadjuvant therapy for inflammatory and locally advanced breast cancer: SWOG 0012. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Mar 10;29(8):1014-21. Epub 2011 Jan 10. link to original article contains verified protocol link to PMC article PubMed NCT00016406

Capecitabine & Docetaxel (TX)

back to top

TX: Taxotere (Docetaxel) & Xeloda (Capecitabine)

Regimen

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Lee et al. 2007	2002-2005	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	AC	Seems to have superior pCR rate

Chemotherapy

Capecitabine (Xeloda) 1000 mg/m² PO twice per day on days 1 to 14
Docetaxel (Taxotere) 75 mg/m² IV over 60 minutes once on day 1

21-day cycle for 4 cycles

Subsequent treatment

Surgery

References

Lee KS, Ro J, Nam BH, Lee ES, Kwon Y, Kwon HS, Chung KW, Kang HS, Kim EA, Kim SW, Shin KH, Kim SK. A randomized phase-III trial of docetaxel/capecitabine versus doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide as primary chemotherapy for patients with stage II/III breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008 Jun;109(3):481-9. Epub 2007 Jul 26. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed

Cyclophosphamide & Doxorubicin (AC)

back to top

AC: Adriamycin (Doxorubicin) & Cyclophosphamide

Regimen variant #1, 4 cycles

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Fisher et al. 1997 (NSABP B-18)	1988-1993	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	Adjuvant AC	Superior resectability
Bear et al. 2003 (NSABP B-27)	1995-2000	Phase 3 (C)	See link	See link
Lee et al. 2007	2002-2005	Phase 3 (C)	TX	Seems to have inferior pCR rate
Bear et al. 2012 (NSABP B-40)	2007-2010	Phase 3 (C)	See link	See link

Preceding treatment

NSABP B-40: T (Taxotere) x 4 versus TX x 4 versus TG x 4

Chemotherapy

Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 60 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 4 cycles

Subsequent treatment

NSABP B-18 & B-40: Surgery
Lee et al. 2007: Surgery, then TX x 4
NSABP B-27: T (Taxotere) x 4, then surgery versus surgery versus surgery, then T (Taxotere) x 4

Regimen variant #2, 6 cycles

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Smith et al. 2004 (TOPIC)	1995-1999	Phase 3 (C)	ECisF	Did not meet primary endpoints of RFS/OS
Chua et al. 2005 (TOPIC 2)	1998-2002	Phase 3 (C)	VE	Did not meet primary endpoint of RFS
Evans et al. 2005	1999-2001	Phase 3 (C)	AD	Did not meet primary endpoint of ORR

Chemotherapy

Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 60 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 6 cycles

Subsequent treatment

Surgery

References

NSABP B-18: Fisher B, Brown A, Mamounas E, Wieand S, Robidoux A, Margolese RG, Cruz AB Jr, Fisher ER, Wickerham DL, Wolmark N, DeCillis A, Hoehn JL, Lees AW, Dimitrov NV. Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on local-regional disease in women with operable breast cancer: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-18. J Clin Oncol. 1997 Jul;15(7):2483-93. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
1. Update: Fisher B, Bryant J, Wolmark N, Mamounas E, Brown A, Fisher ER, Wickerham DL, Begovic M, DeCillis A, Robidoux A, Margolese RG, Cruz AB Jr, Hoehn JL, Lees AW, Dimitrov NV, Bear HD. Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on the outcome of women with operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1998 Aug;16(8):2672-85. link to original article PubMed
2. Update: Wolmark N, Wang J, Mamounas E, Bryant J, Fisher B. Preoperative chemotherapy in patients with operable breast cancer: nine-year results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-18. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;(30):96-102. link to original article PubMed
3. Pooled update: Taghian A, Jeong JH, Mamounas E, Anderson S, Bryant J, Deutsch M, Wolmark N. Patterns of locoregional failure in patients with operable breast cancer treated by mastectomy and adjuvant chemotherapy with or without tamoxifen and without radiotherapy: results from five National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project randomized clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2004 Nov 1;22(21):4247-54. Epub 2004 Sep 27. link to original article PubMed
4. Pooled update: Rastogi P, Anderson SJ, Bear HD, Geyer CE, Kahlenberg MS, Robidoux A, Margolese RG, Hoehn JL, Vogel VG, Dakhil SR, Tamkus D, King KM, Pajon ER, Wright MJ, Robert J, Paik S, Mamounas EP, Wolmark N. Preoperative chemotherapy: updates of National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocols B-18 and B-27. J Clin Oncol. 2008 Feb 10;26(5):778-85. Erratum in: J Clin Oncol. 2008 Jun 1;26(16):2793. link to original article PubMed
NSABP B-27: Bear HD, Anderson S, Brown A, Smith R, Mamounas EP, Fisher B, Margolese R, Theoret H, Soran A, Wickerham DL, Wolmark N; National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project. The effect on tumor response of adding sequential preoperative docetaxel to preoperative doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide: preliminary results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol B-27. J Clin Oncol. 2003 Nov 15;21(22):4165-74. Epub 2003 Oct 14. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00002707
1. Update: Bear HD, Anderson S, Smith RE, Geyer CE Jr, Mamounas EP, Fisher B, Brown AM, Robidoux A, Margolese R, Kahlenberg MS, Paik S, Soran A, Wickerham DL, Wolmark N. Sequential preoperative or postoperative docetaxel added to preoperative doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide for operable breast cancer: National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol B-27. J Clin Oncol. 2006 May 1;24(13):2019-27. Epub 2006 Apr 10. link to original article PubMed
2. Pooled update: Rastogi P, Anderson SJ, Bear HD, Geyer CE, Kahlenberg MS, Robidoux A, Margolese RG, Hoehn JL, Vogel VG, Dakhil SR, Tamkus D, King KM, Pajon ER, Wright MJ, Robert J, Paik S, Mamounas EP, Wolmark N. Preoperative chemotherapy: updates of National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocols B-18 and B-27. J Clin Oncol. 2008 Feb 10;26(5):778-85. Erratum in: J Clin Oncol. 2008 Jun 1;26(16):2793. link to original article PubMed
TOPIC: Smith IE, A'Hern RP, Coombes GA, Howell A, Ebbs SR, Hickish TF, O'Brien ME, Mansi JL, Wilson CB, Robinson AC, Murray PA, Price CG, Perren TJ, Laing RW, Bliss JM; TOPIC Trial Group. A novel continuous infusional 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy regimen compared with conventional chemotherapy in the neo-adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer: 5 year results of the TOPIC trial. Ann Oncol. 2004 May;15(5):751-8. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
Evans TR, Yellowlees A, Foster E, Earl H, Cameron DA, Hutcheon AW, Coleman RE, Perren T, Gallagher CJ, Quigley M, Crown J, Jones AL, Highley M, Leonard RC, Mansi JL; Anglo-Celtic Cooperative Oncology Group. Phase III randomized trial of doxorubicin and docetaxel versus doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide as primary medical therapy in women with breast cancer: an Anglo-Celtic Cooperative Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol. 2005 May 1;23(13):2988-95. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
1. Update: Mansi JL, Yellowlees A, Lipscombe J, Earl HM, Cameron DA, Coleman RE, Perren T, Gallagher CJ, Quigley M, Crown J, Jones AL, Highley M, Leonard RC, Evans TR. Five-year outcome for women randomised in a phase III trial comparing doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide with doxorubicin and docetaxel as primary medical therapy in early breast cancer: an Anglo-Celtic Cooperative Oncology Group study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010 Aug;122(3):787-94. Epub 2010 Jun 18. link to original article PubMed
TOPIC 2: Chua S, Smith IE, A'Hern RP, Coombes GA, Hickish TF, Robinson AC, Laing RW, O'Brien ME, Ebbs SR, Hong A, Wardley A, Mughal T, Verrill M, Dubois D, Bliss JM; TOPIC Trial Group. Neoadjuvant vinorelbine/epirubicin (VE) versus standard adriamycin/cyclophosphamide (AC) in operable breast cancer: analysis of response and tolerability in a randomised phase III trial (TOPIC 2). Ann Oncol. 2005 Sep;16(9):1435-41. Epub 2005 Jun 9. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
Lee KS, Ro J, Nam BH, Lee ES, Kwon Y, Kwon HS, Chung KW, Kang HS, Kim EA, Kim SW, Shin KH, Kim SK. A randomized phase-III trial of docetaxel/capecitabine versus doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide as primary chemotherapy for patients with stage II/III breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008 Jun;109(3):481-9. Epub 2007 Jul 26. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
NSABP B-40: Bear HD, Tang G, Rastogi P, Geyer CE Jr, Robidoux A, Atkins JN, Baez-Diaz L, Brufsky AM, Mehta RS, Fehrenbacher L, Young JA, Senecal FM, Gaur R, Margolese RG, Adams PT, Gross HM, Costantino JP, Swain SM, Mamounas EP, Wolmark N. Bevacizumab added to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012 Jan 26;366(4):310-20. link to original article link to PMC article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00408408
1. Update: Bear HD, Tang G, Rastogi P, Geyer CE Jr, Liu Q, Robidoux A, Baez-Diaz L, Brufsky AM, Mehta RS, Fehrenbacher L, Young JA, Senecal FM, Gaur R, Margolese RG, Adams PT, Gross HM, Costantino JP, Paik S, Swain SM, Mamounas EP, Wolmark N. Neoadjuvant plus adjuvant bevacizumab in early breast cancer (NSABP B-40 [NRG Oncology]): secondary outcomes of a phase 3, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015 Sep;16(9):1037-1048. Epub 2015 Aug 10. Erratum in: Lancet Oncol. 2015 Dec;16(16):e589. link to original article link to PMC article PubMed
ETNA: Gianni L, Mansutti M, Anton A, Calvo L, Bisagni G, Bermejo B, Semiglazov V, Thill M, Chacon JI, Chan A, Morales S, Alvarez I, Plazaola A, Zambetti M, Redfern AD, Dittrich C, Dent RA, Magazzù D, De Fato R, Valagussa P, Tusquets I. Comparing neoadjuvant nab-paclitaxel vs paclitaxel both followed by anthracycline regimens in women with ERBB2/HER2-negative breast cancer-the Evaluating Treatment with Neoadjuvant Abraxane (ETNA) trial: a randomized phase 3 clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2018 Mar 1;4(3):302-308. Epub 2018 Jan 11. link to original article PubMed NCT01822314

Cyclophosphamide & Doxorubicin (AC) & Bevacizumab

back to top

AC+Bev: Adriamycin (Doxorubicin), Cyclophosphamide, Bevacizumab

Regimen

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Bear et al. 2012 (NSABP B-40)	2007-2010	Phase 3 (E-esc)	See link	See link

Note: this is a component of a sequential treatment protocol; to our knowledge there are no references to support using it as a stand-alone treatment.

Preceding treatment

T+Bev x 4 versus TX+Bev x 4 versus TG+Bev x 4

Chemotherapy

Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 60 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

Targeted therapy

Bevacizumab (Avastin) as follows:
- Cycles 1 & 2: 15 mg/kg IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 4 cycles

Subsequent treatment

Surgery, then adjuvant bevacizumab

References

NSABP B-40: Bear HD, Tang G, Rastogi P, Geyer CE Jr, Robidoux A, Atkins JN, Baez-Diaz L, Brufsky AM, Mehta RS, Fehrenbacher L, Young JA, Senecal FM, Gaur R, Margolese RG, Adams PT, Gross HM, Costantino JP, Swain SM, Mamounas EP, Wolmark N. Bevacizumab added to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012 Jan 26;366(4):310-20. link to original article link to PMC article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00408408
1. Update: Bear HD, Tang G, Rastogi P, Geyer CE Jr, Liu Q, Robidoux A, Baez-Diaz L, Brufsky AM, Mehta RS, Fehrenbacher L, Young JA, Senecal FM, Gaur R, Margolese RG, Adams PT, Gross HM, Costantino JP, Paik S, Swain SM, Mamounas EP, Wolmark N. Neoadjuvant plus adjuvant bevacizumab in early breast cancer (NSABP B-40 [NRG Oncology]): secondary outcomes of a phase 3, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015 Sep;16(9):1037-1048. Epub 2015 Aug 10. Erratum in: Lancet Oncol. 2015 Dec;16(16):e589. link to original article link to PMC article PubMed

Dose-dense Cyclophosphamide & Doxorubicin (ddAC)

back to top

ddAC: dose-dense Adriamycin (Doxorubicin) and Cyclophosphamide

Regimen

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence
Burstein et al. 2005	2003-2004	Non-randomized

Note: this is a component of a sequential treatment protocol; to our knowledge there are no references to support using it as a stand-alone treatment.

Chemotherapy

Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 60 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

Supportive medications

Pegfilgrastim (Neulasta) 6 mg SC once on day 2, given 24 hours after chemotherapy
Burstein et al. 2005, for patients with Hb 10 to 12 g/dL:
- Darbepoetin alfa (Aranesp) 200 mcg SC once on day 1
  - See Burstein et al. 2005 for additional dose adjustments

14-day cycle for 4 cycles

Subsequent treatment

Optional dose-dense paclitaxel, then surgery or surgery, then dose-dense paclitaxel; this was not a randomization

References

Burstein HJ, Parker LM, Keshaviah A, Doherty J, Partridge AH, Schapira L, Ryan PD, Younger J, Harris LN, Moy B, Come SE, Schumer ST, Bunnell CA, Haldoupis M, Gelman R, Winer EP. Efficacy of pegfilgrastim and darbepoetin alfa as hematopoietic support for dose-dense every-2-week adjuvant breast cancer chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Nov 20;23(33):8340-7. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed

Cyclophosphamide & Epirubicin (EC)

back to top

EC: Epirubicin & Cyclophosphamide

Regimen

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Untch et al. 2011 (PREPARE)	2002-2005	Phase 3 (C)	See link	See link
von Minckwitz et al. 2010 (GeparQuattro)	2005-NR	Non-randomized portion of RCT
Earl et al. 2013 (Neo-tAnGo)	2005-2007	Phase 3 (C)	See link	See link
von Minckwitz et al. 2012 (GeparQuinto)	2007-2010	Phase 3 (C)	See link	See link
Untch et al. 2016 (GeparSepto)	2012-2013	Non-randomized portion of RCT

Note: this is a component of a sequential treatment protocol; to our knowledge there are no references to support using it as a stand-alone treatment. To our knowledge, this regimen was not tested as an experimental arm in an RCT prior to becoming a standard comparator arm in this context.

Preceding treatment

GeparSepto: nab-Paclitaxel x 4 versus weekly Paclitaxel x 12
Neo-tAnGo (taxanes-EC arm): ddT x 4 versus ddTG x 4

Chemotherapy

Epirubicin (Ellence) 90 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 4 cycles

Subsequent treatment

GeparQuattro: T (Taxotere) x 4 versus T-X versus TX, then surgery
GeparQuinto: Docetaxel, then surgery
Neo-tAnGo (EC-taxane arms): ddT x 4 versus ddTG x 4, then surgery
GeparSepto: Surgery

References

PREPARE: Untch M, von Minckwitz G, Konecny GE, Conrad U, Fett W, Kurzeder C, Lück HJ, Stickeler E, Urbaczyk H, Liedtke B, Beckmann MW, Salat C, Harbeck N, Müller V, Schmidt M, Hasmüller S, Lenhard M, Nekljudova V, Lebeau A, Loibl S, Fasching PA; Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie PREPARE investigators. PREPARE trial: a randomized phase III trial comparing preoperative, dose-dense, dose-intensified chemotherapy with epirubicin, paclitaxel, and CMF versus a standard-dosed epirubicin-cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel with or without darbepoetin alfa in primary breast cancer--outcome on prognosis. Ann Oncol. 2011 Sep;22(9):1999-2006. Epub 2011 Mar 7. link to original article contains protocol PubMed NCT00544232
GeparQuattro: von Minckwitz G, Rezai M, Loibl S, Fasching PA, Huober J, Tesch H, Bauerfeind I, Hilfrich J, Eidtmann H, Gerber B, Hanusch C, Kühn T, du Bois A, Blohmer JU, Thomssen C, Dan Costa S, Jackisch C, Kaufmann M, Mehta K, Untch M. Capecitabine in addition to anthracycline- and taxane-based neoadjuvant treatment in patients with primary breast cancer: phase III GeparQuattro study. J Clin Oncol. 2010 Apr 20;28(12):2015-23. Epub 2010 Mar 22. link to original article contains protocol PubMed NCT00288002
1. Update: von Minckwitz G, Rezai M, Fasching PA, Huober J, Tesch H, Bauerfeind I, Hilfrich J, Eidtmann H, Gerber B, Hanusch C, Blohmer JU, Dan Costa S, Jackisch C, Paepke S, Schneeweiss A, Kümmel S, Denkert C, Mehta K, Loibl S, Untch M. Survival after adding capecitabine and trastuzumab to neoadjuvant anthracycline-taxane-based chemotherapy for primary breast cancer (GBG 40--GeparQuattro). Ann Oncol. 2014 Jan;25(1):81-9. Epub 2013 Nov 21. link to original article PubMed
GeparQuinto: von Minckwitz G, Eidtmann H, Rezai M, Fasching PA, Tesch H, Eggemann H, Schrader I, Kittel K, Hanusch C, Kreienberg R, Solbach C, Gerber B, Jackisch C, Kunz G, Blohmer JU, Huober J, Hauschild M, Fehm T, Müller BM, Denkert C, Loibl S, Nekljudova V, Untch M; German Breast Group; Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie–Breast Study Groups. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and bevacizumab for HER2-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012 Jan 26;366(4):299-309. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00567554
Neo-tAnGo: Earl HM, Vallier AL, Hiller L, Fenwick N, Young J, Iddawela M, Abraham J, Hughes-Davies L, Gounaris I, McAdam K, Houston S, Hickish T, Skene A, Chan S, Dean S, Ritchie D, Laing R, Harries M, Gallagher C, Wishart G, Dunn J, Provenzano E, Caldas C; Neo-tAnGo Investigators. Effects of the addition of gemcitabine, and paclitaxel-first sequencing, in neoadjuvant sequential epirubicin, cyclophosphamide, and paclitaxel for women with high-risk early breast cancer (Neo-tAnGo): an open-label, 2×2 factorial randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014 Feb;15(2):201-12. Epub 2013 Dec 19. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00070278
GeparSepto: Untch M, Jackisch C, Schneeweiss A, Conrad B, Aktas B, Denkert C, Eidtmann H, Wiebringhaus H, Kümmel S, Hilfrich J, Warm M, Paepke S, Just M, Hanusch C, Hackmann J, Blohmer JU, Clemens M, Darb-Esfahani S, Schmitt WD, Dan Costa S, Gerber B, Engels K, Nekljudova V, Loibl S, von Minckwitz G; German Breast Group; Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie—Breast (AGO-B) Investigators. Nab-paclitaxel versus solvent-based paclitaxel in neoadjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer (GeparSepto-GBG 69): a randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. Epub 2016 Feb 8. 2016 Mar;17(3):345-56. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT01583426
1. Update: Furlanetto J, Jackisch C, Untch M, Schneeweiss A, Schmatloch S, Aktas B, Denkert C, Wiebringhaus H, Kümmel S, Warm M, Paepke S, Just M, Hanusch C, Hackmann J, Blohmer JU, Clemens M, Costa SD, Gerber B, Nekljudova V, Loibl S, von Minckwitz G. Efficacy and safety of nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m(2) and nab-paclitaxel 150 mg/m(2) compared to paclitaxel in early high-risk breast cancer: results from the neoadjuvant randomized GeparSepto study (GBG 69). Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017 Jun;163(3):495-506. Epub 2017 Mar 17. link to original article PubMed
ETNA: Gianni L, Mansutti M, Anton A, Calvo L, Bisagni G, Bermejo B, Semiglazov V, Thill M, Chacon JI, Chan A, Morales S, Alvarez I, Plazaola A, Zambetti M, Redfern AD, Dittrich C, Dent RA, Magazzù D, De Fato R, Valagussa P, Tusquets I. Comparing neoadjuvant nab-paclitaxel vs paclitaxel both followed by anthracycline regimens in women with ERBB2/HER2-negative breast cancer-the Evaluating Treatment with Neoadjuvant Abraxane (ETNA) trial: a randomized phase 3 clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2018 Mar 1;4(3):302-308. Epub 2018 Jan 11. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT01822314

DI EC

back to top

DI EC: Dose-Intense Epirubicin & Cyclophosphamide

Regimen

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence
Gonçalves et al. 2015 (UNICANCER PEGASE 07)	2001-2005	Non-randomized portion of phase III RCT

This regimen required hematopoeitic stem cell support; see paper for details.

Chemotherapy

Epirubicin (Ellence) 150 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 4000 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 4 cycles

Subsequent treatment

Surgery, then Docetaxel & 5-FU versus no further treatment

References

UNICANCER PEGASE 07: Gonçalves A, Pierga JY, Ferrero JM, Mouret-Reynier MA, Bachelot T, Delva R, Fabbro M, Lerebours F, Lotz JP, Linassier C, Dohollou N, Eymard JC, Leduc B, Lemonnier J, Martin AL, Boher JM, Viens P, Roché H. UNICANCER-PEGASE 07 study: a randomized phase III trial evaluating postoperative docetaxel-5FU regimen after neoadjuvant dose-intense chemotherapy for treatment of inflammatory breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2015 Aug;26(8):1692-7. Epub 2015 May 5. link to original article contains protocol PubMed NCT02324088

Docetaxel & Epirubicin (DE)

back to top

DE: Docetaxel & Epirubicin
ED: Epirubicin & Docetaxel
ET: Epirubicin & Taxotere (Docetaxel)

Regimen variant #1, 3 cycles

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Chen et al. 2017 (CBCRT01)	2011-2015	Phase 3 (C)	DEE	Inferior ORR

Chemotherapy

Docetaxel (Taxotere) 75 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Epirubicin (Ellence) 75 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 3 cycles

Subsequent treatment

Surgery

Regimen variant #2, 6 cycles

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Steger et al. 2007 (ABCSG-14)	1999-2002	Phase 3 (E-esc)	ED x 3	Superior pCR rate
Han et al. 2009	2003-2005	Phase 3 (E-esc)	ED x 4	Seems to have superior pCR rate
Steger et al. 2013 (ABCSG-24)	2004-2008	Phase 3 (C)	EDC	Seems to have inferior pCR rate

Chemotherapy

Docetaxel (Taxotere) 75 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Epirubicin (Ellence) 75 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 6 cycles

Subsequent treatment

Surgery

References

ABCSG-14: Steger GG, Galid A, Gnant M, Mlineritsch B, Lang A, Tausch C, Rudas M, Greil R, Wenzel C, Singer CF, Haid A, Pöstlberger S, Samonigg H, Luschin-Ebengreuth G, Kwasny W, Klug E, Kubista E, Menzel C, Jakesz R; ABCSG. Pathologic complete response with six compared with three cycles of neoadjuvant epirubicin plus docetaxel and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in operable breast cancer: results of ABCSG-14. J Clin Oncol. 2007 May 20;25(15):2012-8. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
Han S, Kim J, Lee J, Chang E, Gwak G, Cho H, Yang KH, Park S, Park K. Comparison of 6 cycles versus 4 cycles of neoadjuvant epirubicin plus docetaxel chemotherapy in stages II and III breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2009 Jun;35(6):583-7. Epub 2009 Feb 5. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
ABCSG-24: Steger GG, Greil R, Lang A, Rudas M, Fitzal F, Mlineritsch B, Hartmann BL, Bartsch R, Melbinger E, Hubalek M, Stoeger H, Dubsky P, Ressler S, Petzer AL, Singer CF, Muss C, Jakesz R, Gampenrieder SP, Zielinski CC, Fesl C, Gnant M; ABCSG. Epirubicin and docetaxel with or without capecitabine as neoadjuvant treatment for early breast cancer: final results of a randomized phase III study (ABCSG-24). Ann Oncol. 2014 Feb;25(2):366-71. Epub 2013 Dec 16. link to original article contains protocol PubMed NCT00309556
CBCRT01: Chen J, Yao Q, Huang M, Wang B, Zhang J, Wang T, Ming Y, Zhou X, Jia Q, Huan Y, Wang J, Wang L. A randomized Phase III trial of neoadjuvant recombinant human endostatin, docetaxel and epirubicin as first-line therapy for patients with breast cancer (CBCRT01). Int J Cancer. 2018 May 15;142(10):2130-2138. Epub 2017 Dec 23. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT01479036

Docetaxel monotherapy

back to top

D: Docetaxel
T: Taxotere (Docetaxel)

Regimen variant #1, 75 mg/m² x 4

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Bear et al. 2012 (NSABP B-40)	2007-2010	Phase 3 (C)	See link	See link

Note: this is a component of a sequential treatment protocol; to our knowledge there are no references to support using it as a stand-alone treatment.

Chemotherapy

Docetaxel (Taxotere) 75 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 4 cycles

Subsequent treatment

AC x 4, then surgery

Regimen variant #2, 100 mg/m² x 3

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Earl et al. 2015 (ARTemis)	2009-2013	Phase 3 (C)	Docetaxel & Bevacizumab	Seems to have inferior pCR rate

Note: this is a component of a sequential treatment protocol; to our knowledge there are no references to support using it as a stand-alone treatment.

Chemotherapy

Docetaxel (Taxotere) 100 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 3 cycles

Subsequent treatment

FEC

Regimen variant #3, 100 mg/m² x 4

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Bear et al. 2003 (NSABP B-27)	1995-2000	Phase 3 (E-esc)	See link	See link
von Minckwitz et al. 2012 (GeparQuinto)	2007-2010	Phase 3 (C)	See link	See link

Note: this is a component of a sequential treatment protocol; to our knowledge there are no references to support using it as a stand-alone treatment.

Preceding treatment

NSABP B-27: AC x 4
GeparQuinto: EC x 4

Chemotherapy

Docetaxel (Taxotere) 100 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 4 cycles

Subsequent treatment

Surgery

References

NSABP B-27: Bear HD, Anderson S, Brown A, Smith R, Mamounas EP, Fisher B, Margolese R, Theoret H, Soran A, Wickerham DL, Wolmark N; National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project. The effect on tumor response of adding sequential preoperative docetaxel to preoperative doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide: preliminary results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol B-27. J Clin Oncol. 2003 Nov 15;21(22):4165-74. Epub 2003 Oct 14. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00002707
1. Update: Bear HD, Anderson S, Smith RE, Geyer CE Jr, Mamounas EP, Fisher B, Brown AM, Robidoux A, Margolese R, Kahlenberg MS, Paik S, Soran A, Wickerham DL, Wolmark N. Sequential preoperative or postoperative docetaxel added to preoperative doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide for operable breast cancer: National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol B-27. J Clin Oncol. 2006 May 1;24(13):2019-27. Epub 2006 Apr 10. link to original article PubMed
2. Pooled update: Rastogi P, Anderson SJ, Bear HD, Geyer CE, Kahlenberg MS, Robidoux A, Margolese RG, Hoehn JL, Vogel VG, Dakhil SR, Tamkus D, King KM, Pajon ER, Wright MJ, Robert J, Paik S, Mamounas EP, Wolmark N. Preoperative chemotherapy: updates of National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocols B-18 and B-27. J Clin Oncol. 2008 Feb 10;26(5):778-85. Erratum in: J Clin Oncol. 2008 Jun 1;26(16):2793. link to original article PubMed
GeparQuinto: von Minckwitz G, Eidtmann H, Rezai M, Fasching PA, Tesch H, Eggemann H, Schrader I, Kittel K, Hanusch C, Kreienberg R, Solbach C, Gerber B, Jackisch C, Kunz G, Blohmer JU, Huober J, Hauschild M, Fehm T, Müller BM, Denkert C, Loibl S, Nekljudova V, Untch M; German Breast Group; Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie–Breast Study Groups. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and bevacizumab for HER2-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012 Jan 26;366(4):299-309. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00567554
NSABP B-40: Bear HD, Tang G, Rastogi P, Geyer CE Jr, Robidoux A, Atkins JN, Baez-Diaz L, Brufsky AM, Mehta RS, Fehrenbacher L, Young JA, Senecal FM, Gaur R, Margolese RG, Adams PT, Gross HM, Costantino JP, Swain SM, Mamounas EP, Wolmark N. Bevacizumab added to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012 Jan 26;366(4):310-20. link to original article link to PMC article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00408408
1. Update: Bear HD, Tang G, Rastogi P, Geyer CE Jr, Liu Q, Robidoux A, Baez-Diaz L, Brufsky AM, Mehta RS, Fehrenbacher L, Young JA, Senecal FM, Gaur R, Margolese RG, Adams PT, Gross HM, Costantino JP, Paik S, Swain SM, Mamounas EP, Wolmark N. Neoadjuvant plus adjuvant bevacizumab in early breast cancer (NSABP B-40 [NRG Oncology]): secondary outcomes of a phase 3, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015 Sep;16(9):1037-1048. Epub 2015 Aug 10. Erratum in: Lancet Oncol. 2015 Dec;16(16):e589. link to original article link to PMC article PubMed
ARTemis: Earl HM, Hiller L, Dunn JA, Blenkinsop C, Grybowicz L, Vallier AL, Abraham J, Thomas J, Provenzano E, Hughes-Davies L, Gounaris I, McAdam K, Chan S, Ahmad R, Hickish T, Houston S, Rea D, Bartlett J, Caldas C, Cameron DA, Hayward L; ARTemis Investigators. Efficacy of neoadjuvant bevacizumab added to docetaxel followed by fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide, for women with HER2-negative early breast cancer (ARTemis): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015 Jun;16(6):656-66. Epub 2015 May 11. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT01093235

Docetaxel & Bevacizumab

back to top

Bev+D: Bevacizumab & Docetaxel
T+Bev: Taxotere (Docetaxel) & Bevacizumab

Regimen variant #1, docetaxel 75 mg/m²

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Bear et al. 2012 (NSABP B-40)	2007-2010	Phase 3 (E-esc)	See link	See link

Note: this is a component of a sequential treatment protocol; to our knowledge there are no references to support using it as a stand-alone treatment.

Chemotherapy

Docetaxel (Taxotere) 75 mg/m² IV once on day 1

Targeted therapy

Bevacizumab (Avastin) 15 mg/kg IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 4 cycles

Subsequent treatment

AC+Bev x 4, then surgery

Regimen variant #2, docetaxel 100 mg/m²

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Earl et al. 2015 (ARTemis)	2009-2013	Phase 3 (E-esc)	Docetaxel	Seems to have superior pCR rate

Note: this is a component of a sequential treatment protocol; to our knowledge there are no references to support using it as a stand-alone treatment. A total of four bevacizumab doses are given, with the fourth given with the first cycle of FEC.

Chemotherapy

Docetaxel (Taxotere) 100 mg/m² IV once on day 1

Targeted therapy

Bevacizumab (Avastin) 15 mg/kg IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 3 cycles

Subsequent treatment

FEC

References

NSABP B-40: Bear HD, Tang G, Rastogi P, Geyer CE Jr, Robidoux A, Atkins JN, Baez-Diaz L, Brufsky AM, Mehta RS, Fehrenbacher L, Young JA, Senecal FM, Gaur R, Margolese RG, Adams PT, Gross HM, Costantino JP, Swain SM, Mamounas EP, Wolmark N. Bevacizumab added to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012 Jan 26;366(4):310-20. link to original article link to PMC article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00408408
1. Update: Bear HD, Tang G, Rastogi P, Geyer CE Jr, Liu Q, Robidoux A, Baez-Diaz L, Brufsky AM, Mehta RS, Fehrenbacher L, Young JA, Senecal FM, Gaur R, Margolese RG, Adams PT, Gross HM, Costantino JP, Paik S, Swain SM, Mamounas EP, Wolmark N. Neoadjuvant plus adjuvant bevacizumab in early breast cancer (NSABP B-40 [NRG Oncology]): secondary outcomes of a phase 3, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015 Sep;16(9):1037-1048. Epub 2015 Aug 10. Erratum in: Lancet Oncol. 2015 Dec;16(16):e589. link to original article link to PMC article PubMed
ARTemis: Earl HM, Hiller L, Dunn JA, Blenkinsop C, Grybowicz L, Vallier AL, Abraham J, Thomas J, Provenzano E, Hughes-Davies L, Gounaris I, McAdam K, Chan S, Ahmad R, Hickish T, Houston S, Rea D, Bartlett J, Caldas C, Cameron DA, Hayward L; ARTemis Investigators. Efficacy of neoadjuvant bevacizumab added to docetaxel followed by fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide, for women with HER2-negative early breast cancer (ARTemis): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015 Jun;16(6):656-66. Epub 2015 May 11. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT01093235

EDC

back to top

EDC: Epirubicin, Docetaxel, Capecitabine

Regimen

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Steger et al. 2013 (ABCSG-24)	2004-2008	Phase 3 (E-esc)	ED	Seems to have superior pCR rate

Chemotherapy

Epirubicin (Ellence) 75 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Docetaxel (Taxotere) 75 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Capecitabine (Xeloda) 1000 mg/m² PO twice per day on days 1 to 14

21-day cycle for 6 cycles

Subsequent treatment

Surgery

References

ABCSG-24: Steger GG, Greil R, Lang A, Rudas M, Fitzal F, Mlineritsch B, Hartmann BL, Bartsch R, Melbinger E, Hubalek M, Stoeger H, Dubsky P, Ressler S, Petzer AL, Singer CF, Muss C, Jakesz R, Gampenrieder SP, Zielinski CC, Fesl C, Gnant M; ABCSG. Epirubicin and docetaxel with or without capecitabine as neoadjuvant treatment for early breast cancer: final results of a randomized phase III study (ABCSG-24). Ann Oncol. 2014 Feb;25(2):366-71. Epub 2013 Dec 16. link to original article contains protocol PubMed NCT00309556

Epirubicin & Paclitaxel (EP)

back to top

EP: Epirubicin & Paclitaxel
ET: Epirubicin & Taxol (Paclitaxel)

Regimen

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Untch et al. 2009 (TECHNO)	1998-2002	Phase 3 (C)	ddE, then ddP	Seems to have inferior OS
Frasci et al. 2006	1999-2004	Phase 3 (C)	PET	Seems to have inferior pCR rate

Note: this is a component of a sequential treatment protocol; to our knowledge there are no references to support using it as a stand-alone treatment.

Chemotherapy

Epirubicin (Ellence) 90 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Paclitaxel (Taxol) 175 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 4 cycles

Subsequent treatment

Frasci et al. 2006: Surgery, then CMF x 4 or FEC x 4, depending on number of involved lymph nodes
TECHNO: Surgery, then CMF x 3

References

Frasci G, D'Aiuto G, Comella P, Thomas R, Botti G, Di Bonito M, De Rosa V, Iodice G, Rubulotta MR, Comella G; Southern Italy Cooperative Oncology Group. Weekly cisplatin, epirubicin, and paclitaxel with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor support vs triweekly epirubicin and paclitaxel in locally advanced breast cancer: final analysis of a SICOG phase III study. Br J Cancer. 2006 Oct 23;95(8):1005-12. link to original article contains protocol link to PMC article PubMed
TECHNO: Untch M, Möbus V, Kuhn W, Muck BR, Thomssen C, Bauerfeind I, Harbeck N, Werner C, Lebeau A, Schneeweiss A, Kahlert S, von Koch F, Petry KU, Wallwiener D, Kreienberg R, Albert US, Lück HJ, Hinke A, Jänicke F, Konecny GE. Intensive dose-dense compared with conventionally scheduled preoperative chemotherapy for high-risk primary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009 Jun 20;27(18):2938-45. Epub 2009 Apr 13. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed

FAC

back to top

FAC: Fluorouracil, Adriamycin (Doxorubicin), Cyclophosphamide

Regimen variant #1, 500/50/500

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Arun et al. 2011 (MDACC 91-0156)	1992-1997	Phase 3 (C)	DI FAC	Did not meet primary endpoint of pCR rate

Chemotherapy

Fluorouracil (5-FU) 500 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 50 mg/m²/day IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 500 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 4 cycles

Subsequent treatment

Surgery

Regimen variant #2, 600/50/600

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Baldini et al. 1997	NR in abstract	Phase 3 (C)	DES-CAF	Did not meet primary endpoint of pCR rate

Chemotherapy

Fluorouracil (5-FU) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 50 mg/m²/day IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 3 cycles

Subsequent treatment

Surgery

Regimen variant #3, 1000/50/500

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Buzdar et al. 1999	1994-1998	Phase 3 (C)	Paclitaxel; q3wk x 4	Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS
Green et al. 2005	1998-2001	Non-randomized portion of RCT

Note: this is a component of a sequential treatment protocol; to our knowledge there are no references to support using it as a stand-alone treatment.

Preceding treatment

Green et al. 2005: Weekly paclitaxel x 12 versus q3wk paclitaxel x 4

Chemotherapy

Fluorouracil (5-FU) 500 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 4
Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 16.7 mg/m²/day IV continuous infusion over 72 hours, started on day 1 (total dose per cycle: 50 mg/m²)
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 500 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 4 cycles

Subsequent treatment

Buzdar et al. 1999: Surgery, then FAC x 4
Green et al. 2005: Surgery

Regimen variant #4, 2000/50/100

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Scholl et al. 1994 (S6)	1986-1990	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	Adjuvant FAC	Seems to have superior OS

Chemotherapy

Fluorouracil (5-FU) 500 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1, 3, 5, 8
Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 25 mg/m²/day IV once per day on days 1 & 8
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 500 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 5

28-day cycle for 4 cycles

Subsequent treatment

Surgery

References

S6: Scholl SM, Fourquet A, Asselain B, Pierga JY, Vilcoq JR, Durand JC, Dorval T, Palangié T, Jouve M, Beuzeboc P, Garcio-Giralt E, Salmon RJ, de la Rochefordiere A, Campana F, Pouillart P. Neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy in premenopausal patients with tumours considered too large for breast conserving surgery: preliminary results of a randomised trial: S6. Eur J Cancer. 1994;30A(5):645-52. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
Baldini E, Gardin G, Giannessi P, Brema F, Camorriano A, Carnino F, Naso C, Pastorino G, Pronzato P, Rosso R, Rubagotti A, Torretta G, Conte PF; North-West Oncology Group. A randomized trial of chemotherapy with or without estrogenic recruitment in locally advanced breast cancer. Tumori. 1997 Sep-Oct;83(5):829-33. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
Buzdar AU, Singletary SE, Theriault RL, Booser DJ, Valero V, Ibrahim N, Smith TL, Asmar L, Frye D, Manuel N, Kau SW, McNeese M, Strom E, Hunt K, Ames F, Hortobagyi GN. Prospective evaluation of paclitaxel versus combination chemotherapy with fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide as neoadjuvant therapy in patients with operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1999 Nov;17(11):3412-7. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
Green MC, Buzdar AU, Smith T, Ibrahim NK, Valero V, Rosales MF, Cristofanilli M, Booser DJ, Pusztai L, Rivera E, Theriault RL, Carter C, Frye D, Hunt KK, Symmans WF, Strom EA, Sahin AA, Sikov W, Hortobagyi GN. Weekly paclitaxel improves pathologic complete remission in operable breast cancer when compared with paclitaxel once every 3 weeks. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Sep 1;23(25):5983-92. Epub 2005 Aug 8. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
MDACC 91-0156: Arun BK, Dhinghra K, Valero V, Kau SW, Broglio K, Booser D, Guerra L, Yin G, Walters R, Sahin A, Ibrahim N, Buzdar AU, Frye D, Sneige N, Strom E, Ross M, Theriault RL, Vadhan-Raj S, Hortobagyi GN. Phase III randomized trial of dose intensive neoadjuvant chemotherapy with or without G-CSF in locally advanced breast cancer: long-term results. Oncologist. 2011;16(11):1527-34. Epub 2011 Oct 31. link to original article contains protocol link to PMC article PubMed

FEC

back to top

FEC: Fluorouracil, Epirubicin, Cyclophosphamide

Regimen variant #1, 500/100/500 x 3

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence
Earl et al. 2015 (ARTemis)	2009-2013	Non-randomized portion of RCT

Note that for the patients randomized to the bevacizumab arm, a fourth dose was given with the first cycle of FEC. This is a component of a sequential treatment protocol; to our knowledge there are no references to support using it as a stand-alone treatment.

Preceding treatment

Docetaxel & Bevacizumab x 3 versus Docetaxel x 3

Chemotherapy

Fluorouracil (5-FU) 500 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Epirubicin (Ellence) 100 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 500 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 3 cycles

Subsequent treatment

Surgery

Regimen variant #2, 500/100/500 x 4 ("FEC 100")

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence
Kelly et al. 2012 (MDACC ID01-580)	2002-2008	Non-randomized portion of RCT

Note: This is a component of a sequential treatment protocol; to our knowledge there are no references to support using it as a stand-alone treatment.

Preceding treatment

Weekly paclitaxel x 12 versus XT

Chemotherapy

Fluorouracil (5-FU) 500 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Epirubicin (Ellence) 100 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 500 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 4 cycles

Subsequent treatment

Surgery

Regimen variant #3, 600/60/600 x 3

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Baldini et al. 2003	1992-1997	Phase 3 (C)	Dose-dense FEC	Did not meet primary endpoint of pCR rate

Chemotherapy

Fluorouracil (5-FU) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Epirubicin (Ellence) 60 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 3 cycles

Subsequent treatment

Surgery, then CEF/CMF x 3

Regimen variant #4, 600/60/600 x 4

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
van der Hage et al. 2001 (EORTC 10902)	1991-1999	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	FEC; adjuvant	Did not meet primary endpoint of OS

Chemotherapy

Fluorouracil (5-FU) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Epirubicin (Ellence) 60 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 4 cycles

Subsequent treatment

Surgery

Regimen variant #5, 1000/120/1050 x 6

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Therasse et al. 2003 (EORTC 10921)	1993-1996	Phase III (C)	Dose-dense Cyclophosphamide & Epirubicin (ddEC)	Did not meet primary endpoint of PFS

Chemotherapy

Fluorouracil (5-FU) 500 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8
Epirubicin (Ellence) 60 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 75 mg/m² PO once per day on days 1 to 14

28-day cycle for 6 cycles

Subsequent treatment

Surgery

References

EORTC 10902: van der Hage JA, van de Velde CJ, Julien JP, Tubiana-Hulin M, Vandervelden C, Duchateau L. Preoperative chemotherapy in primary operable breast cancer: results from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer trial 10902. J Clin Oncol. 2001 Nov 15;19(22):4224-37. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
1. Update: van Nes JG, Putter H, Julien JP, Tubiana-Hulin M, van de Vijver M, Bogaerts J, de Vos M, van de Velde CJ; Cooperating Investigators of the EORTC. Preoperative chemotherapy is safe in early breast cancer, even after 10 years of follow-up; clinical and translational results from the EORTC trial 10902. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009 May;115(1):101-13. Epub 2008 May 18. link to original article PubMed
Baldini E, Gardin G, Giannessi PG, Evangelista G, Roncella M, Prochilo T, Collecchi P, Rosso R, Lionetto R, Bruzzi P, Mosca F, Conte PF. Accelerated versus standard cyclophosphamide, epirubicin and 5-fluorouracil or cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil: a randomized phase III trial in locally advanced breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2003 Feb;14(2):227-32. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
EORTC 10921: Therasse P, Mauriac L, Welnicka-Jaskiewicz M, Bruning P, Cufer T, Bonnefoi H, Tomiak E, Pritchard KI, Hamilton A, Piccart MJ; EORTC. 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. J Clin Oncol. 2003 Mar 1;21(5):843-50. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
MDACC ID01-580: Kelly CM, Green MC, Broglio K, Thomas ES, Brewster AM, Valero V, Ibrahim NK, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Booser DJ, Walters RS, Hunt KK, Hortobagyi GN, Buzdar AU. Phase III trial evaluating weekly paclitaxel versus docetaxel in combination with capecitabine in operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2012 Mar 20;30(9):930-5. Epub 2012 Feb 13. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00050167
ARTemis: Earl HM, Hiller L, Dunn JA, Blenkinsop C, Grybowicz L, Vallier AL, Abraham J, Thomas J, Provenzano E, Hughes-Davies L, Gounaris I, McAdam K, Chan S, Ahmad R, Hickish T, Houston S, Rea D, Bartlett J, Caldas C, Cameron DA, Hayward L; ARTemis Investigators. Efficacy of neoadjuvant bevacizumab added to docetaxel followed by fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide, for women with HER2-negative early breast cancer (ARTemis): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015 Jun;16(6):656-66. Epub 2015 May 11. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT01093235
ETNA: Gianni L, Mansutti M, Anton A, Calvo L, Bisagni G, Bermejo B, Semiglazov V, Thill M, Chacon JI, Chan A, Morales S, Alvarez I, Plazaola A, Zambetti M, Redfern AD, Dittrich C, Dent RA, Magazzù D, De Fato R, Valagussa P, Tusquets I. Comparing neoadjuvant nab-paclitaxel vs paclitaxel both followed by anthracycline regimens in women with ERBB2/HER2-negative breast cancer-the Evaluating Treatment with Neoadjuvant Abraxane (ETNA) trial: a randomized phase 3 clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2018 Mar 1;4(3):302-308. Epub 2018 Jan 11. link to original article PubMed NCT01822314

Paclitaxel monotherapy, weekly

back to top

T: Taxol (Paclitaxel)

Regimen variant #1, 80 mg/m² weekly

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Green et al. 2005	1998-2001	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	Paclitaxel; q3wk	Seems to have superior pCR rate
Kelly et al. 2012 (MDACC ID01-580)	2002-2008	Phase 3 (C)	XT	Did not meet primary endpoint of RFS
Untch et al. 2016 (GeparSepto)	2012-2013	Phase 3 (C)	nab-Paclitaxel	Inferior pCR rate

Note: this is a component of a sequential treatment protocol; to our knowledge there are no references to support using it as a stand-alone treatment.

Preceding treatment

SWOG 0012: AC x 5 versus weekly doxorubicin & daily cyclophosphamide

Chemotherapy

Paclitaxel (Taxol) 80 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1, 8, 15

21-day cycle for 4 cycles

Subsequent treatment

Green et al. 2005: FAC x 4, then surgery
Kelly et al 2012: FEC x 4, then surgery
GeparSepto: EC x 4, then surgery

Regimen variant #2, 90 mg/m², 3 out of 4 weeks

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Gianni et al. 2018 (ETNA)	2013-2015	Phase 3 (C)	nab-Paclitaxel	Did not meet primary endpoint of pCR rate

Note: this is a component of a sequential treatment protocol; to our knowledge there are no references to support using it as a stand-alone treatment.

Chemotherapy

Paclitaxel (Taxol) 90 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1, 8, 15

4-week cycle for 4 cycles

Subsequent treatment

AC or EC or FEC, then surgery

References

Green MC, Buzdar AU, Smith T, Ibrahim NK, Valero V, Rosales MF, Cristofanilli M, Booser DJ, Pusztai L, Rivera E, Theriault RL, Carter C, Frye D, Hunt KK, Symmans WF, Strom EA, Sahin AA, Sikov W, Hortobagyi GN. Weekly paclitaxel improves pathologic complete remission in operable breast cancer when compared with paclitaxel once every 3 weeks. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Sep 1;23(25):5983-92. Epub 2005 Aug 8. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
MDACC ID01-580: Kelly CM, Green MC, Broglio K, Thomas ES, Brewster AM, Valero V, Ibrahim NK, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Booser DJ, Walters RS, Hunt KK, Hortobagyi GN, Buzdar AU. Phase III trial evaluating weekly paclitaxel versus docetaxel in combination with capecitabine in operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2012 Mar 20;30(9):930-5. Epub 2012 Feb 13. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00050167
GeparSepto: Untch M, Jackisch C, Schneeweiss A, Conrad B, Aktas B, Denkert C, Eidtmann H, Wiebringhaus H, Kümmel S, Hilfrich J, Warm M, Paepke S, Just M, Hanusch C, Hackmann J, Blohmer JU, Clemens M, Darb-Esfahani S, Schmitt WD, Dan Costa S, Gerber B, Engels K, Nekljudova V, Loibl S, von Minckwitz G; German Breast Group; Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie—Breast (AGO-B) Investigators. Nab-paclitaxel versus solvent-based paclitaxel in neoadjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer (GeparSepto-GBG 69): a randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. Epub 2016 Feb 8. 2016 Mar;17(3):345-56. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT01583426
1. Update: Furlanetto J, Jackisch C, Untch M, Schneeweiss A, Schmatloch S, Aktas B, Denkert C, Wiebringhaus H, Kümmel S, Warm M, Paepke S, Just M, Hanusch C, Hackmann J, Blohmer JU, Clemens M, Costa SD, Gerber B, Nekljudova V, Loibl S, von Minckwitz G. Efficacy and safety of nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m(2) and nab-paclitaxel 150 mg/m(2) compared to paclitaxel in early high-risk breast cancer: results from the neoadjuvant randomized GeparSepto study (GBG 69). Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017 Jun;163(3):495-506. Epub 2017 Mar 17. link to original article PubMed
ETNA: Gianni L, Mansutti M, Anton A, Calvo L, Bisagni G, Bermejo B, Semiglazov V, Thill M, Chacon JI, Chan A, Morales S, Alvarez I, Plazaola A, Zambetti M, Redfern AD, Dittrich C, Dent RA, Magazzù D, De Fato R, Valagussa P, Tusquets I. Comparing neoadjuvant nab-paclitaxel vs paclitaxel both followed by anthracycline regimens in women with ERBB2/HER2-negative breast cancer-the Evaluating Treatment with Neoadjuvant Abraxane (ETNA) trial: a randomized phase 3 clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2018 Mar 1;4(3):302-308. Epub 2018 Jan 11. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT01822314

Paclitaxel monotherapy, dose-dense (q2wk)

back to top

ddT: dose-dense Taxol (Paclitaxel)

Regimen

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Burstein et al. 2005	2003-2004	Non-randomized
Earl et al. 2013 (Neo-tAnGo)	2005-2007	Phase 3 (C)	See link	See link

Note: this is a component of a sequential treatment protocol; to our knowledge there are no references to support using it as a stand-alone treatment.

Preceding treatment

Burstein et al. 2005: ddAC x 4
Neo-tAnGo (EC-ddT arm): EC x 4

Chemotherapy

Paclitaxel (Taxol) 175 mg/m² IV once on day 1

Supportive medications

Burstein et al. 2005: Pegfilgrastim (Neulasta) 6 mg SC once on day 2
Neo-tAnGo: primary propyhylaxis not provided

14-day cycle for 4 cycles

Subsequent treatment

Burstein et al. 2005 and Neo-tAnGo (EC-ddT arm): Surgery
Neo-tAnGo (ddT-EC arm): EC x 4, then surgery

References

Burstein HJ, Parker LM, Keshaviah A, Doherty J, Partridge AH, Schapira L, Ryan PD, Younger J, Harris LN, Moy B, Come SE, Schumer ST, Bunnell CA, Haldoupis M, Gelman R, Winer EP. Efficacy of pegfilgrastim and darbepoetin alfa as hematopoietic support for dose-dense every-2-week adjuvant breast cancer chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Nov 20;23(33):8340-7. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
Neo-tAnGo: Earl HM, Vallier AL, Hiller L, Fenwick N, Young J, Iddawela M, Abraham J, Hughes-Davies L, Gounaris I, McAdam K, Houston S, Hickish T, Skene A, Chan S, Dean S, Ritchie D, Laing R, Harries M, Gallagher C, Wishart G, Dunn J, Provenzano E, Caldas C; Neo-tAnGo Investigators. Effects of the addition of gemcitabine, and paclitaxel-first sequencing, in neoadjuvant sequential epirubicin, cyclophosphamide, and paclitaxel for women with high-risk early breast cancer (Neo-tAnGo): an open-label, 2×2 factorial randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014 Feb;15(2):201-12. Epub 2013 Dec 19. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00070278

nab-Paclitaxel monotherapy

back to top

Regimen

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Untch et al. 2016 (GeparSepto)	2012-2013	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	Paclitaxel; weekly	Superior pCR rate

Note: this is the dose after study amendment due to increased treatment discontinuation and sensory neuropathy. This is a component of a sequential treatment protocol; to our knowledge there are no references to support using it as a stand-alone treatment.

Chemotherapy

Paclitaxel, nanoparticle albumin-bound (Abraxane) 125 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1, 8, 15

21-day cycle for 4 cycles

Subsequent treatment

EC x 4, then surgery

References

GeparSepto: Untch M, Jackisch C, Schneeweiss A, Conrad B, Aktas B, Denkert C, Eidtmann H, Wiebringhaus H, Kümmel S, Hilfrich J, Warm M, Paepke S, Just M, Hanusch C, Hackmann J, Blohmer JU, Clemens M, Darb-Esfahani S, Schmitt WD, Dan Costa S, Gerber B, Engels K, Nekljudova V, Loibl S, von Minckwitz G; German Breast Group; Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie—Breast (AGO-B) Investigators. Nab-paclitaxel versus solvent-based paclitaxel in neoadjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer (GeparSepto-GBG 69): a randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. Epub 2016 Feb 8. 2016 Mar;17(3):345-56. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT01583426
1. Update: Furlanetto J, Jackisch C, Untch M, Schneeweiss A, Schmatloch S, Aktas B, Denkert C, Wiebringhaus H, Kümmel S, Warm M, Paepke S, Just M, Hanusch C, Hackmann J, Blohmer JU, Clemens M, Costa SD, Gerber B, Nekljudova V, Loibl S, von Minckwitz G. Efficacy and safety of nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m(2) and nab-paclitaxel 150 mg/m(2) compared to paclitaxel in early high-risk breast cancer: results from the neoadjuvant randomized GeparSepto study (GBG 69). Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017 Jun;163(3):495-506. Epub 2017 Mar 17. link to original article PubMed
ETNA: Gianni L, Mansutti M, Anton A, Calvo L, Bisagni G, Bermejo B, Semiglazov V, Thill M, Chacon JI, Chan A, Morales S, Alvarez I, Plazaola A, Zambetti M, Redfern AD, Dittrich C, Dent RA, Magazzù D, De Fato R, Valagussa P, Tusquets I. Comparing neoadjuvant nab-paclitaxel vs paclitaxel both followed by anthracycline regimens in women with ERBB2/HER2-negative breast cancer-the Evaluating Treatment with Neoadjuvant Abraxane (ETNA) trial: a randomized phase 3 clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2018 Mar 1;4(3):302-308. Epub 2018 Jan 11. link to original article PubMed NCT01822314

PET

back to top

PET: Platinol (Cisplatin), Epirubicin, Taxol (Paclitaxel)

Regimen

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Frasci et al. 2006	1999-2004	Phase 3 (E-esc)	EP	Seems to have superior pCR rate

Chemotherapy

Cisplatin (Platinol) 30 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1, 8, 15
Epirubicin (Ellence) 50 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1, 8, 15
Paclitaxel (Taxol) 120 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1, 8, 15

21-day cycle for 4 cycles

Subsequent treatment

Frasci et al. 2006: Surgery

References

Frasci G, D'Aiuto G, Comella P, Thomas R, Botti G, Di Bonito M, De Rosa V, Iodice G, Rubulotta MR, Comella G; Southern Italy Cooperative Oncology Group. Weekly cisplatin, epirubicin, and paclitaxel with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor support vs triweekly epirubicin and paclitaxel in locally advanced breast cancer: final analysis of a SICOG phase III study. Br J Cancer. 2006 Oct 23;95(8):1005-12. link to original article contains protocol link to PMC article PubMed

TAC (Taxotere)

back to top

TAC: Taxotere (Docetaxel), Adriamycin (Doxorubicin), Cyclophosphamide
ATC: Adriamycin (Doxorubicin), Taxotere (Docetaxel), Cyclophosphamide

Regimen

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
von Minckwitz et al. 2008 (GeparTrio)	2002-2005	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	TAC x 2, then NX x 4	Non-inferior sonographic response
Vriens et al. 2013 (INTENS)	2006-2009	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	AC, then T	Did not meet primary endpoint of pCR rate

Chemotherapy

Docetaxel (Taxotere) 75 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 50 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 500 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 6 cycles

Subsequent treatment

Surgery

References

GeparTrio: von Minckwitz G, Kümmel S, Vogel P, Hanusch C, Eidtmann H, Hilfrich J, Gerber B, Huober J, Costa SD, Jackisch C, Loibl S, Mehta K, Kaufmann M; GBG. Neoadjuvant vinorelbine-capecitabine versus docetaxel-doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide in early nonresponsive breast cancer: phase III randomized GeparTrio trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008 Apr 16;100(8):542-51. Epub 2008 Apr 8. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00544765
INTENS: Vriens BE, Aarts MJ, de Vries B, van Gastel SM, Wals J, Smilde TJ, van Warmerdam LJ, de Boer M, van Spronsen DJ, Borm GF, Tjan-Heijnen VC; BOOG. Doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide with concurrent versus sequential docetaxel as neoadjuvant treatment in patients with breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2013 Oct;49(15):3102-10. Epub 2013 Jul 10. link to original article contains protocol PubMed NCT00314977
1. Update: Vriens BEPJ, Vriens IJH, Aarts MJB, van Gastel SM, van den Berkmortel FWPJ, Smilde TJ, van Warmerdam LJC, van Spronsen DJ, Peer PGM, de Boer M, Tjan-Heijnen VCG; BOOG. Improved survival for sequentially as opposed to concurrently delivered neoadjuvant chemotherapy in non-metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017 Oct;165(3):593-600. Epub 2017 Jul 3. link to original article link to PMC article PubMed

Neoadjuvant response criteria

Clinical response rate (cRR)

back to top

Although fairly dated, some trials such as ACOSOG Z1031 make use of the WHO criteria for response to neoadjuvant therapy. Included here primarily for historical purposes.

References

Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staquet M, Winkler A. Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer. 1981 Jan 1;47(1):207-14. link to original article PubMed

Miller-Payne scoring system

back to top

Grade 1: No change or some changes to individual malignant cells, but no reduction in overall cellularity
Grade 2: Minor loss of tumor cells (up to 30%), but overall cellularity still high
Grade 3: An estimated 30 to 90% reduction in the number of tumor cells
Grade 4: Marked disappearance of tumor cells such that only small clusters or widely dispersed individual cells remain (loss of greater than 90% of tumor cells)
Grade 5: No invasive cancer cells identifiable in sections from the site of the tumor (carcinoma in situ may be present)

References

Ogston KN, Miller ID, Payne S, Hutcheon AW, Sarkar TK, Smith I, Schofield A, Heys SD. A new histological grading system to assess response of breast cancers to primary chemotherapy: prognostic significance and survival. Breast. 2003 Oct;12(5):320-7. link to original article PubMed

Residual cancer burden (RCB)

back to top

The RCB is calculated as follows: RCB = 1.4 (f_inv*d_prim)^0.17 + [4(1 - 0.75^LN)d_met]^0.17
- where d_prim is derived from the bidimensional diameters of the primary tumor bed in the resected specimen, f_inv is the proportion of the primary tumor bed that contains invasive carcinoma, LN is the number of axillary lymph nodes containing metastatic carcinoma, and d_met is the diameter of the largest metastasis in an axillary lymph node.
- The cut-off points are 1.36 and 3.28.

References

Symmans WF, Peintinger F, Hatzis C, Rajan R, Kuerer H, Valero V, Assad L, Poniecka A, Hennessy B, Green M, Buzdar AU, Singletary SE, Hortobagyi GN, Pusztai L. Measurement of residual breast cancer burden to predict survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2007 Oct 1;25(28):4414-22. Epub 2007 Sep 4. link to original article PubMed

Residual disease in breast and nodes (RDBN)

back to top

Level 1: pCR in breast and nodes with or without in situ carcinoma
Levels 2 to 4: Residual disease, calculated as 0.2 (residual breast tumor size in cm) + index of involved nodes (0 for no positive nodes, 1 for 1 to 4 positive nodes, 2 for 5 to 7 positive nodes, and 3 for 8 positive nodes) + the Scarff–Bloom–Richardson grade (1, 2, or 3). The cut-off points are 3 and 4.3.

References

Chollet P, Abrial C, Durando X, Thivat E, Tacca O, Mouret-Reynier MA, Leheurteur M, Kwiatkowski F, Dauplat J, Penault-Llorca F. A new prognostic classification after primary chemotherapy for breast cancer: residual disease in breast and nodes (RDBN). Cancer J. 2008 Mar-Apr;14(2):128-32. link to original article PubMed

Sataloff's classification

back to top

Breast:
- T-A: Total or nearly total therapeutic effect
- T-B: Greater than 50% therapeutic effect
- T-C: Less than 50% therapeutic effect
- T-D: No therapeutic effect
Lymph node:
- N-A: Therapeutic effect but no metastasis
- N-B: No metastasis, no therapeutic effect
- N-C: Therapeutic effect but metastasis
- N-D: Metastasis, no therapeutic effect

References

Sataloff DM, Mason BA, Prestipino AJ, Seinige UL, Lieber CP, Baloch Z. Pathologic response to induction chemotherapy in locally advanced carcinoma of the breast: a determinant of outcome. J Am Coll Surg. 1995 Mar;180(3):297-306. PubMed

Tumor response ratio

back to top

Calculated as follows: Residual breast disease observed upon pathologic examination divided by the size of the tumor on the pre-neoadjuvant therapy image.

TRR = 0: pathologic complete response (pCR)
TRR greater than 0 up to 0.4: strong partial response
TRR greater than 0.4 up to 1.0: weak partial response (WPR)
TRR greater than 1.0: tumor growth

References

Miller M, Ottesen RA, Niland JC, Kruper L, Chen SL, Vito C. Tumor response ratio predicts overall survival in breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014 Oct;21(10):3317-23. Epub 2014 Jul 25. link to original article PubMed

ypTNM staging

back to top

This system is proprietary to the AJCC. Please visit their site or consult the AJCC Manual for further details.

Adjuvant chemotherapy

AC-CMF

back to top

AC-CMF: Adriamycin (Doxorubicin) & Cyclophosphamide followed by Cyclophosphamide, Methotrexate, Fluorouracil

Protocol

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Basser et al. 2006 (IBCSG 15-95)	1995-2000	Phase 3 (C)	DI-EC	Seems to have inferior DFS¹

¹Reported efficacy is based on the 2009 update.

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy, AC portion

Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 60 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 4 cycles, followed by:

Chemotherapy, CMF portion

Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 100 mg/m² PO once per day on days 1 to 14
Methotrexate (MTX) 40 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8
Fluorouracil (5-FU) 600 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8

28-day cycle for 3 cycles

References

IBCSG 15-95: Basser RL, O'Neill A, Martinelli G, Green MD, Peccatori F, Cinieri S, Coates AS, Gelber RD, Aebi S, Castiglione-Gertsch M, Viale G, Price KN, Goldhirsch A; International Breast Cancer Study Group. Multicycle dose-intensive chemotherapy for women with high-risk primary breast cancer: results of International Breast Cancer Study Group Trial 15-95. J Clin Oncol. 2006 Jan 20;24(3):370-8. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00002784
1. Update: Colleoni M, Sun Z, Martinelli G, Basser RL, Coates AS, Gelber RD, Green MD, Peccatori F, Cinieri S, Aebi S, Viale G, Price KN, Goldhirsch A; International Breast Cancer Study Group. The effect of endocrine responsiveness on high-risk breast cancer treated with dose-intensive chemotherapy: results of International Breast Cancer Study Group Trial 15-95 after prolonged follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2009 Aug;20(8):1344-51. Epub 2009 May 25. link to original article link to PMC article PubMed

AC-D

back to top

AC-D: Adriamycin (Doxorubicin) & Cyclophosphamide followed by Docetaxel

Protocol

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Swain et al. 2010 (NSABP B-30)	1999-2004	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	1. AT	Seems to have superior OS
Swain et al. 2010 (NSABP B-30)	1999-2004	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	2. TAC	Might have superior OS
Eiermann et al. 2011 (BCIRG-005)	2000-2003	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	TAC	Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS60

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy, AC portion

Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 60 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 4 cycles, followed by:

Chemotherapy, D portion

Docetaxel (Taxotere) 100 mg/m² IV over 60 minutes once on day 1

21-day cycle for 4 cycles

References

NSABP B-30: Swain SM, Jeong JH, Geyer CE Jr, Costantino JP, Pajon ER, Fehrenbacher L, Atkins JN, Polikoff J, Vogel VG, Erban JK, Rastogi P, Livingston RB, Perez EA, Mamounas EP, Land SR, Ganz PA, Wolmark N. Longer therapy, iatrogenic amenorrhea, and survival in early breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010 Jun 3;362(22):2053-65. link to original article link to PMC article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00003782
BCIRG-005: Eiermann W, Pienkowski T, Crown J, Sadeghi S, Martín M, Chan A, Saleh M, Sehdev S, Provencher L, Semiglazov V, Press M, Sauter G, Lindsay MA, Riva A, Buyse M, Drevot P, Taupin H, Mackey JR. Phase III study of doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide with concomitant versus sequential docetaxel as adjuvant treatment in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-normal, node-positive breast cancer: BCIRG-005 trial. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Oct 10;29(29):3877-84. Epub 2011 Sep 12. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00312208
1. Update: Mackey JR, Pieńkowski T, Crown J, Sadeghi S, Martín M, Chan A, Saleh M, Sehdev S, Provencher L, Semiglazov V, Press MF, Sauter G, Lindsay M, Houé V, Buyse M, Drevot P, Hitier S, Bensfia S, Eiermann W; Translational Research In Oncology (TRIO)/ Breast Cancer International Research Group (BCIRG)-005 investigators. Long-term outcomes after adjuvant treatment of sequential versus combination docetaxel with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide in node-positive breast cancer: BCIRG-005 randomized trial. Ann Oncol. 2016 Jun;27(6):1041-7. Epub 2016 Mar 2. link to original article PubMed

AC-T

back to top

AC-T: Adriamycin (Doxorubicin) & Cyclophosphamide followed by Taxol (Paclitaxel)

Protocol #1, q3wk paclitaxel

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Citron et al. 2003 (CALGB 9741)	1997-1999	Phase 3 (C)	See link	See link
Loesch et al. 2010	2000-2002	Phase 3 (C)	See link	See link
Burnell et al. 2009 (NCIC-CTG MA.21)	2000-2005	Phase 3 (C)	See link	See link

Note: this regimen has been studied in many trials; these may be referenced under the individual components AC or T. Over time we will migrate these studies here.

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy, AC portion

Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 60 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 4 cycles, followed by:

Chemotherapy, T portion

Paclitaxel (Taxol) 175 mg/m² IV over 3 hours once on day 1

21-day cycle for 4 cycles

Protocol #2, weekly paclitaxel

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Fehrenbacher et al. 2019 (NSABP B-47)	2011-2015	Phase 3 (C)	1. AC-T & Trastuzumab 2. Dose-dense AC-T & Trastuzumab 3. TC & Trastuzumab	Did not meet primary endpoint of IDFS

Note: this regimen has been studied in many trials; these may be referenced under the individual components AC or T. Over time we will migrate these studies here.

Biomarker eligiblity criteria

NSABP B-47: HER2 IHC of 1+ or 2+ with FISH ratio less than 2 or HER2 gene copy number less than 4

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy, AC portion

Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 60 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 4 cycles, followed by:

Chemotherapy, T portion

Paclitaxel (Taxol) 80 mg/m² IV once on day 1

7-day cycle for 12 cycles

References

CALGB 9741: Citron ML, Berry DA, Cirrincione C, Hudis C, Winer EP, Gradishar WJ, Davidson NE, Martino S, Livingston R, Ingle JN, Perez EA, Carpenter J, Hurd D, Holland JF, Smith BL, Sartor CI, Leung EH, Abrams J, Schilsky RL, Muss HB, Norton L. Randomized trial of dose-dense versus conventionally scheduled and sequential versus concurrent combination chemotherapy as postoperative adjuvant treatment of node-positive primary breast cancer: first report of Intergroup Trial C9741/Cancer and Leukemia Group B Trial 9741. J Clin Oncol. 2003 Apr 15;21(8):1431-9. Epub 2003 Feb 13. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00003088
NCIC-CTG MA.21: Burnell M, Levine MN, Chapman JA, Bramwell V, Gelmon K, Walley B, Vandenberg T, Chalchal H, Albain KS, Perez EA, Rugo H, Pritchard K, O'Brien P, Shepherd LE. Cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and fluorouracil versus dose-dense epirubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel versus doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel in node-positive or high-risk node-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010 Jan 1;28(1):77-82. Epub 2009 Nov 9. link to original article link to PMC article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00014222
Loesch D, Greco FA, Senzer NN, Burris HA, Hainsworth JD, Jones S, Vukelja SJ, Sandbach J, Holmes F, Sedlacek S, Pippen J, Lindquist D, McIntyre K, Blum JL, Modiano MR, Boehm KA, Zhan F, Asmar L, Robert N. Phase III multicenter trial of doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel compared with doxorubicin plus paclitaxel followed by weekly paclitaxel as adjuvant therapy for women with high-risk breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010 Jun 20;28(18):2958-65. Epub 2010 May 17. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
NSABP B-47: Fehrenbacher L, Cecchini RS, Geyer CE Jr, Rastogi P, Costantino JP, Atkins JN, Crown JP, Polikoff J, Boileau JF, Provencher L, Stokoe C, Moore TD, Robidoux A, Flynn PJ, Borges VF, Albain KS, Swain SM, Paik S, Mamounas EP, Wolmark N. NSABP B-47/NRG Oncology Phase III Randomized Trial Comparing Adjuvant Chemotherapy With or Without Trastuzumab in High-Risk Invasive Breast Cancer Negative for HER2 by FISH and With IHC 1+ or 2. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Feb 10;38(5):444-453. Epub 2019 Dec 10. link to original article link to PMC article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT01275677

Dose-dense AC-T

back to top

ddAC-T: dose-dense Adriamycin (Doxorubicin) & Cyclophosphamide followed by Taxol (Paclitaxel)

Protocol #1, q2wk paclitaxel

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Citron et al. 2003 (CALGB 9741)	1997-1999	Phase 3 (E-esc)	See link	See link

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy, ddAC portion

Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 60 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

Supportive medications

Filgrastim (Neupogen) 5 mcg/kg (rounded to either 300 or 480 mcg) SC once per day on days 3 to 10
- Note: Citron et al. 2003 says the schedule was "filgrastim days 3 to 10 of each cycle (a total of seven doses)," so it is unclear whether 7 or 8 doses was actually used).

14-day cycle for 4 cycles, followed by:

Chemotherapy, T portion

Paclitaxel (Taxol) 175 mg/m² IV over 3 hours once on day 1

Supportive medications

Diphenhydramine (Benadryl) 12.5 to 50 mg IV once on day 1; 30 to 60 minutes prior to Paclitaxel (Taxol)
One of the following H2 blockers:
- Ranitidine (Zantac) 50 mg IV once on day 1; 30 to 60 minutes prior to Paclitaxel (Taxol)
- Cimetidine (Tagamet) 300 mg IV once on day 1; 30 to 60 minutes prior to Paclitaxel (Taxol)
- Famotidine (Pepcid) 20 mg IV once on day 1; 30 to 60 minutes prior to Paclitaxel (Taxol)
One of the following dexamethasone choices:
- Dexamethasone (Decadron) 10 mg IV once on day 1, within 60 minutes prior to Paclitaxel (Taxol)
- Dexamethasone (Decadron) 10 mg PO once on day 1, at least 60 minutes prior to Paclitaxel (Taxol)
- Dexamethasone (Decadron) 20 mg PO twice on day 1; 6 hours and 12 hours prior to Paclitaxel (Taxol)
Recommended growth factor support with one of the following:
- Filgrastim (Neupogen) 5 mcg/kg (rounded to 300 mcg or 480 mcg, whichever is closer) SC once per day on days 3 to 10; may be discontinued before day 10 if ANC has recovered to an "acceptable range, as determined by the treating physician"
- Sargramostim (Leukine) 250 to 500 mcg/m² SC once per day on days 3 to 10; may be discontinued before day 10 if ANC has recovered to an "acceptable range, as determined by the treating physician"
- Pegfilgrastim (Neulasta) 6 mg SC once, given 24 to 36 hours after chemotherapy
  - GIM2: a mid-protocol amendment suggested giving the pegilgrastim at least 72 h after chemotherapy

14-day cycle for 4 cycles

Protocol #2, weekly paclitaxel

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Fehrenbacher et al. 2019 (NSABP B-47)	2011-2015	Phase 3 (C)	1. AC-T & Trastuzumab 2. Dose-dense AC-T & Trastuzumab 3. TC & Trastuzumab	Did not meet primary endpoint of IDFS

Note: Fehrenbacher et al. 2019 does not explicitly describe the use of filgrastim, but it is typically used for this regimen.

Biomarker eligiblity criteria

NSABP B-47: HER2 IHC of 1+ or 2+ with FISH ratio less than 2 or HER2 gene copy number less than 4

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy, ddAC portion

Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 60 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

Supportive medications

Filgrastim (Neupogen) 5 mcg/kg (rounded to either 300 or 480 mcg) SC once per day on days 3 to 10

14-day cycle for 4 cycles

Chemotherapy, T portion

Paclitaxel (Taxol) 80 mg/m² IV once on day 1

7-day cycle for 12 cycles

References

CALGB 9741: Citron ML, Berry DA, Cirrincione C, Hudis C, Winer EP, Gradishar WJ, Davidson NE, Martino S, Livingston R, Ingle JN, Perez EA, Carpenter J, Hurd D, Holland JF, Smith BL, Sartor CI, Leung EH, Abrams J, Schilsky RL, Muss HB, Norton L. Randomized trial of dose-dense versus conventionally scheduled and sequential versus concurrent combination chemotherapy as postoperative adjuvant treatment of node-positive primary breast cancer: first report of Intergroup Trial C9741/Cancer and Leukemia Group B Trial 9741. J Clin Oncol. 2003 Apr 15;21(8):1431-9. Epub 2003 Feb 13. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00003088
NSABP B-47: Fehrenbacher L, Cecchini RS, Geyer CE Jr, Rastogi P, Costantino JP, Atkins JN, Crown JP, Polikoff J, Boileau JF, Provencher L, Stokoe C, Moore TD, Robidoux A, Flynn PJ, Borges VF, Albain KS, Swain SM, Paik S, Mamounas EP, Wolmark N. NSABP B-47/NRG Oncology Phase III Randomized Trial Comparing Adjuvant Chemotherapy With or Without Trastuzumab in High-Risk Invasive Breast Cancer Negative for HER2 by FISH and With IHC 1+ or 2. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Feb 10;38(5):444-453. Epub 2019 Dec 10. link to original article link to PMC article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT01275677

Bevacizumab monotherapy

back to top

Regimen

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Bear et al. 2012 (NSABP B-40)	2007-2010	Phase 3 (E-esc)	See link	See link

Preceding treatment

Neoadjuvant AC+Bev x 4, then surgery

Targeted therapy

Bevacizumab (Avastin) 15 mg/kg IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 10 cycles

References

NSABP B-40: Bear HD, Tang G, Rastogi P, Geyer CE Jr, Robidoux A, Atkins JN, Baez-Diaz L, Brufsky AM, Mehta RS, Fehrenbacher L, Young JA, Senecal FM, Gaur R, Margolese RG, Adams PT, Gross HM, Costantino JP, Swain SM, Mamounas EP, Wolmark N. Bevacizumab added to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012 Jan 26;366(4):310-20. link to original article link to PMC article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00408408
1. Update: Bear HD, Tang G, Rastogi P, Geyer CE Jr, Liu Q, Robidoux A, Baez-Diaz L, Brufsky AM, Mehta RS, Fehrenbacher L, Young JA, Senecal FM, Gaur R, Margolese RG, Adams PT, Gross HM, Costantino JP, Paik S, Swain SM, Mamounas EP, Wolmark N. Neoadjuvant plus adjuvant bevacizumab in early breast cancer (NSABP B-40 [NRG Oncology]): secondary outcomes of a phase 3, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015 Sep;16(9):1037-1048. Epub 2015 Aug 10. Erratum in: Lancet Oncol. 2015 Dec;16(16):e589. link to original article link to PMC article PubMed

Capecitabine monotherapy

back to top

Regimen variant #1, 4 cycles

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Martín et al. 2015 (GEICAM 2003-10)	2004-2007	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	See link	See link
Cameron et al. 2017 (TACT2)	2005-2008	Phase 3 (E-de-esc)	See link	See link

Note: this is a component of a sequential treatment protocol; to our knowledge there are no references to support using it as a stand-alone treatment.

Preceding treatment

GEICAM 2003-10: ET x 4
TACT2: ddE x 4 versus Epirubicin x 4

Chemotherapy

Capecitabine (Xeloda) 1250 mg/m² PO twice per day on days 1 to 14

21-day cycle for 4 cycles

Regimen variant #2, 6 to 8 cycles

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Muss et al. 2009 (CALGB 49907)	2001-2006	Phase 3 (E-de-esc)	Physician's choice of: 1. AC x 4 2. CMF x 6	Seems to have inferior OS
Masuda et al. 2017 (CREATE-X)	2007-2012	Phase 3 (E-esc)	Standard therapy	Superior OS (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.39-0.90)

Note: patients in CALGB 49907 received a maximum of 6 cycles. All patients in CREATE-X had residual disease at time of surgical resection. Concomitant endocrine therapy was allowed.

Preceding treatment

CALGB 49907: Surgery
CREATE-X: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy containing anthracycline, taxane, or both, then surgery

Chemotherapy

Capecitabine (Xeloda) 1250 mg/m² PO twice per day on days 1 to 14

21-day cycle for 6 to 8 cycles

References

CALGB 49907: Muss HB, Berry DA, Cirrincione CT, Theodoulou M, Mauer AM, Kornblith AB, Partridge AH, Dressler LG, Cohen HJ, Becker HP, Kartcheske PA, Wheeler JD, Perez EA, Wolff AC, Gralow JR, Burstein HJ, Mahmood AA, Magrinat G, Parker BA, Hart RD, Grenier D, Norton L, Hudis CA, Winer EP; CALGB. Adjuvant chemotherapy in older women with early-stage breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2009 May 14;360(20):2055-65. Erratum in: N Engl J Med. 2009 Oct 22;361(17):1714. Magrinat, Gutav [corrected to Magrinat, Gustav]. link to original article link to PMC article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00024102
GEICAM 2003-10: Martín M, Ruiz Simón A, Ruiz Borrego M, Ribelles N, Rodríguez-Lescure A, Muñoz-Mateu M, González S, Margelí Vila M, Barnadas A, Ramos M, Del Barco Berron S, Jara C, Calvo L, Martínez-Jáñez N, Mendiola Fernández C, Rodríguez CA, Martínez de Dueñas E, Andrés R, Plazaola A, de la Haba-Rodríguez J, López-Vega JM, Adrover E, Ballesteros AI, Santaballa A, Sánchez-Rovira P, Baena-Cañada JM, Casas M, del Carmen Cámara M, Carrasco EM, Lluch A. Epirubicin plus cyclophosphamide followed by docetaxel versus epirubicin plus docetaxel followed by capecitabine as adjuvant therapy for node-positive early breast cancer: results from the GEICAM/2003-10 study. J Clin Oncol. 2015 Nov 10;33(32):3788-95. Epub 2015 Sep 28. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00129935
CREATE-X: Masuda N, Lee SJ, Ohtani S, Im YH, Lee ES, Yokota I, Kuroi K, Im SA, Park BW, Kim SB, Yanagita Y, Ohno S, Takao S, Aogi K, Iwata H, Jeong J, Kim A, Park KH, Sasano H, Ohashi Y, Toi M. Adjuvant capecitabine for breast cancer after preoperative chemotherapy. N Engl J Med. 2017 Jun 1;376(22):2147-2159. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed UMIN000000843
TACT2: Cameron D, Morden JP, Canney P, Velikova G, Coleman R, Bartlett J, Agrawal R, Banerji J, Bertelli G, Bloomfield D, Brunt AM, Earl H, Ellis P, Gaunt C, Gillman A, Hearfield N, Laing R, Murray N, Couper N, Stein RC, Verrill M, Wardley A, Barrett-Lee P, Bliss JM; TACT2 Investigators. Accelerated versus standard epirubicin followed by cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil or capecitabine as adjuvant therapy for breast cancer in the randomised UK TACT2 trial (CRUK/05/19): a multicentre, phase 3, open-label, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017 Jul;18(7):929-945. Epub 2017 Jun 7. link to original article link to PMC article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00301925

CMF

back to top

CMF: Cyclophosphamide, Methotrexate, Fluorouracil

Regimen variant #1, 600/40/600 x 6

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Ron et al. 2001	1988-1992	Phase 3 (C)	CNF	Seems to have inferior DFS

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Methotrexate (MTX) 40 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Fluorouracil (5-FU) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 6 cycles

Regimen variant #2, 600/40/600 x 8

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Buzzoni et al. 1991 (Milan trial)	1982-1987	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	See link	See link
Overgaard et al. 1997 (DBCG 82b)	1982-1989	Phase 3 (E-switch-ooc)	See link	See link

Note: in DBCG 82b, radiotherapy was given between cycles 1 & 2

Preceding treatment

Milan trial: Surgery, then A x 4
DBCG 82b: Mastectomy

Chemotherapy

Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Methotrexate (MTX) 40 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Fluorouracil (5-FU) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

28-day cycle for 8 cycles

Regimen variant #3, 600/50/600 x 8

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Leonard et al. 2004	1995-1999	Phase 3 (C)	Cyclophosphamide & Thiotepa with auto HSCT	Did not meet primary endpoint of RFS

Note: this is a component of a sequential treatment protocol; to our knowledge there are no references to support using it as a stand-alone treatment.

Preceding treatment

Surgery, then A x 4

Chemotherapy

Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Methotrexate (MTX) 50 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Fluorouracil (5-FU) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

28-day cycle for 8 cycles

Regimen variant #4, 700/30/700 x 24

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Clahsen et al. 1995 (EORTC 09771)	1976-1980	Phase 3 (E-esc)	Observation	Seems to have superior OS

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 50 mg/m² PO once per day on days 1 to 14
Methotrexate (MTX) 15 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8
Fluorouracil (5-FU) 350 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8

1-month cycle for 24 cycles

Regimen variant #5, 750/50/600 x 4

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Poole et al. 2006 (BR9601)	1996-2001	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	See link	See link

Note: this is a component of a sequential treatment protocol; to our knowledge there are no references to support using it as a stand-alone treatment.

Preceding treatment

E x 4

Chemotherapy

Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 750 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Methotrexate (MTX) 50 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Fluorouracil (5-FU) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 4 cycles

Regimen variant #6, 750/50/600 x 8

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Stewart et al. 1993	1980-1990	Phase 3 (C)	1. CMFP 2. Oophorectomy 3. Oophorectomy & Prednisolone	Did not meet primary endpoint of EFS
Poole et al. 2006 (BR9601)	1996-2001	Phase 3 (C)	Epirubicin, then CMF x 4	Inferior OS

Note: after 1984, patients in Stewart et al. 1993 only received 6 cycles.

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 750 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Methotrexate (MTX) 50 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Fluorouracil (5-FU) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 8 cycles (see note)

Regimen variant #7, 840/50/800

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Hubay et al. 1980	NR	Randomized (C)	1. CMFT	Seems to have inferior RFS
Hubay et al. 1980	NR	Randomized (C)	2. CMFT & BCG	Did not meet endpoints of RFS/OS

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 30 mg/m² PO twice per day on days 1 to 14
Methotrexate (MTX) 25 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8
Fluorouracil (5-FU) 400 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8

28-day cycle for 12 cycles

Regimen variant #8, 1000/80/1000 x 6

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Kimura et al. 2009	1996-2000	Phase 3 (C)	FEC	Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 500 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8
Methotrexate (MTX) 40 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8
Fluorouracil (5-FU) 500 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8

28-day cycle for 6 cycles

Regimen variant #9, 1000/80/1200 x 3

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Zander et al. 2004	1993-2000	Phase 3 (C)	Cyclophosphamide, Mitoxantrone, Thiotepa with auto HSCT	Might have inferior EFS

Note: this is a component of a sequential treatment protocol; to our knowledge there are no references to support using it as a stand-alone treatment.

Preceding treatment

Surgery, then EC x 4

Chemotherapy

Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 500 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8
Methotrexate (MTX) 40 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8
Fluorouracil (5-FU) 600 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8

28-day cycle for 3 cycles

Regimen variant #10, 1000/80/1200 x 6

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Jonat et al. 2002 (ZEBRA)	1990-1996	Phase 3 (C)	Goserelin x 2 y	Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS
Schmid et al. 2007 (TABLE)	1995-1998	Phase 3 (C)	Leuprolide	Inferior OS

Preceding treatment

Surgery, within 6 weeks

Chemotherapy

Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 500 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8
Methotrexate (MTX) 40 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8
Fluorouracil (5-FU) 600 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8

28-day cycle for 6 cycles

Regimen variant #11, 1120/60/1000 x 12

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Brincker et al. 1983 (DBCG 77B)	1977-1983	Phase 3 (E-esc)	1. Cyclophosphamide	Did not meet primary endpoint of RFS
			2. Levamisole	Not reported
			3. No chemotherapy	Seems to have superior OS¹

¹Reported efficacy versus no chemotherapy is based on the 2010 update.

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 80 mg/m² PO once per day on days 1 to 14
Methotrexate (MTX) 30 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8
Fluorouracil (5-FU) 500 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8

1-month cycle for 12 cycles

Regimen variant #12, 1120/64/960 x 12

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Howell et al. 1984	1976-1983	Phase 3 (E-esc)	Observation	Superior RFS

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 80 mg/m² PO once per day on days 1 to 14
Methotrexate (MTX) 32 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8
Fluorouracil (5-FU) 4800 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8

28-day cycle for 12 cycles

Regimen variant #13, 1200/80/1200 x 4

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Poole et al. 2006 (NEAT)	1996-2001	Phase 3 (E-esc)	See link	See link
Gianni et al. 2009 (ECTO)	1996-2002	Phase 3 (C)	See link	See link
Ellis et al. 2009 (TACT)	2001-2003	Randomized Phase II (C)	See link	See link
Perrone et al. 2014 (ELDA)	2003-2011	Phase 3 (C)	Docetaxel	Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS
Cameron et al. 2017 (TACT2)	2005-2008	Phase 3 (C)	See link	See link

Note: this is a component of a sequential treatment protocol; to our knowledge there are no references to support using it as a stand-alone treatment. In ELDA, this protocol was for ER/PR+ patients.

Preceding treatment

NEAT, TACT, TACT2: Surgery, then E x 4
ECTO: Surgery, then A x 4 versus AT (Taxol) x 4

Chemotherapy

Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 600 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8
Methotrexate (MTX) 40 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8
Fluorouracil (5-FU) 600 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8

28-day cycle for 4 cycles

Regimen variant #14, 1200/80/1200 x 6

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Ragaz et al. 1997	1978-1986	Phase 3 (C)	CMF & RT	Seems to have inferior OS
Coombes et al. 1996	1984-1992	Phase 3 (C)	FEC	Did not meet primary endpoints of RFS/OS
Taucher et al. 2007 (ABCSG-07)	1991-1999	Phase 3 (C)	CMF; neoadjuvant	Seems to have superior RFS
Poole et al. 2006 (NEAT)	1996-2001	Phase 3 (C)	Epirubicin, then CMF x 4	Inferior OS
Perrone et al. 2014 (ELDA)	2003-2011	Phase 3 (C)	Docetaxel	Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS

Note: In ELDA, this protocol was for ER/PR- patients.

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 600 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8
Methotrexate (MTX) 40 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8
Fluorouracil (5-FU) 600 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8

28-day cycle for 6 cycles

Regimen variant #15, 1400/80/1000 x 6

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Watanabe et al. 2009 (NSAS BC-01)	1996-2001	Phase 3 (C)	UFT	Inconclusive whether non-inferior RFS

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 100 mg/m² PO once per day on days 1 to 14
Methotrexate (MTX) 40 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8
Fluorouracil (5-FU) 500 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8

28-day cycle for 6 cycles

Regimen variant #16, 1400/80/1200 x 3

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Castiglione-Gertsch et al. 1996 (IBCSG VI)	1986-1993	Phase 3 (E-de-esc)	1. CMF x 6	Seems to have inferior DFS
Castiglione-Gertsch et al. 1996 (IBCSG VI)	1986-1993	Phase 3 (E-de-esc)	2. CMF x 3, with re-introduction 3. CMF x 6, with re-introduction	Might have inferior DFS
Colleoni et al. 2006 (IBCSG 13-93)	1993-1999	Non-randomized portion of RCT

Preceding treatment

IBCSG VI: Surgery
IBCSG 13-93: Surgery, then AC x 4 or EC x 4

Chemotherapy

Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 100 mg/m² PO once per day on days 1 to 14
Methotrexate (MTX) 40 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8
Fluorouracil (5-FU) 600 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8

28-day cycle for 3 cycles

Subsequent treatment

IBCSG VI: Tamoxifen x 5 y versus no further treatment

Regimen variant #17, 1400/80/1200 x 4

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Poole et al. 2006 (NEAT)	1996-2001	Phase 3 (E-esc)	See link	See link
Cameron et al. 2017 (TACT2)	2005-2008	Phase 3 (C)	See link	See link

Note: this is a component of a sequential treatment protocol; to our knowledge there are no references to support using it as a stand-alone treatment.

Preceding treatment

E x 4

Chemotherapy

Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 100 mg/m² PO once per day on days 1 to 14
Methotrexate (MTX) 40 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8
Fluorouracil (5-FU) 600 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8

28-day cycle for 4 cycles

Regimen variant #18, 1400/80/1200 x 6

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Tancini et al. 1979	1975-NR	Phase 3 (E-de-esc)	CMF x 12	Did not meet primary endpoint of RFS
Coombes et al. 1996	1984-1992	Phase 3 (C)	FEC	Did not meet primary endpoints of RFS/OS
Castiglione-Gertsch et al. 1996 (IBCSG VI)	1986-1993	Phase 3 (C)	1. CMF x 3	Seems to have superior DFS
Castiglione-Gertsch et al. 1996 (IBCSG VI)	1986-1993	Phase 3 (C)	2. CMF x 3, with re-introduction 3. CMF x 6, with re-introduction	Might have inferior DFS
Piccart et al. 2001 (Belgian trial)	1988-1996	Phase 3 (C)	1. EC; full-dose	Did not meet primary endpoint of EFS
Piccart et al. 2001 (Belgian trial)	1988-1996	Phase 3 (C)	2. EC; moderate-dose	Did not meet primary endpoint of EFS
Levine et al. 1998 (NCIC-CTG MA.5)	1989-1993	Phase 3 (C)	CEF	Inferior RFS
Amadori et al. 2000	1989-1993	Phase 3 (E-esc)	Observation	Seems to have superior DFS
Hutchins et al. 2005 (INT-0102)	1989-1993	Phase 3 (C)	CAF	Seems to have inferior OS
Jonat et al. 2002 (ZEBRA)	1990-1996	Phase 3 (C)	Goserelin x 2 y	Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS
Fisher et al. 2001 (NSABP B-23)	1991-1998	Phase 3 (C)	AC	Did not meet primary endpoint of OS
Adjuvant Breast Cancer Trials Collaborative Group 2007 (NCRI ABC-CT)	1992-2000	Phase 3 (E-esc)	Observation	Seems to have superior OS (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.70-0.99)
Poole et al. 2006 (NEAT)	1996-2001	Phase 3 (C)	Epirubicin, then CMF x 4	Inferior OS
Muss et al. 2009 (CALGB 49907)	2001-2006	Phase 3 (C)	Capecitabine	Seems to have superior OS

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 100 mg/m² PO once per day on days 1 to 14
Methotrexate (MTX) 40 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8
Fluorouracil (5-FU) 600 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8

28-day cycle for 6 cycles

Subsequent treatment

NSABP B-23 and INT-0102: tamoxifen x 5 years versus placebo

Regimen variant #19, 1400/80/1200 x 12

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Bonadonna et al. 1976	1973-1975	Phase 3 (E-esc)	Observation	Superior RFS
Tancini et al. 1979	1975-NR	Phase 3 (C)	CMF x 6	Did not meet primary endpoint of RFS
Misset et al. 1996 (OncoFrance)	1978-1981	Phase 3 (C)	AVCF	Inferior OS
Tormey et al. 1990 (ECOG E5177)	1978-1982	Phase 3 (C)	1. CMFP 2. CMFPT	Did not meet primary endpoints of TTR/OS

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 100 mg/m² PO once per day on days 1 to 14
Methotrexate (MTX) 40 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8
Fluorouracil (5-FU) 600 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8

28-day cycle for 12 cycles

References

Bonadonna G, Brusamolino E, Valagussa P, Rossi A, Brugnatelli L, Brambilla C, De Lena M, Tancini G, Bajetta E, Musumeci R, Veronesi U. Combination chemotherapy as an adjuvant treatment in operable breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 1976 Feb 19;294(8):405-10. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
1. Update: Bonadonna G, Rossi A, Valagussa P, Banfi A, Veronesi U. The CMF program for operable breast cancer with positive axillary nodes: updated analysis on the disease-free interval, site of relapse and drug tolerance. Cancer. 1977 Jun;39(6 Suppl):2904-15. link to original article PubMed
2. Update: Bonadonna G, Valagussa P, Rossi A, Tancini G, Brambilla C, Zambetti M, Veronesi U. Ten-year experience with CMF-based adjuvant chemotherapy in resectable breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1985;5(2):95-115. link to original article PubMed
3. Update: Bonadonna G, Valagussa P, Moliterni A, Zambetti M, Brambilla C. Adjuvant cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil in node-positive breast cancer: the results of 20 years of follow-up. N Engl J Med. 1995 Apr 6;332(14):901-6. link to original article PubMed
Tancini G, Bajetta E, Marchini S, Valagussa P, Bonadonna G, Veronesi U. Preliminary 3-year results of 12 versus 6 cycles of surgical adjuvant CMF in premenopausal breast cancer. Cancer Clin Trials. 1979 Winter;2(4):285-92. PubMed
1. Update: Tancini G, Bonadonna G, Valagussa P, Marchini S, Veronesi U. Adjuvant CMF in breast cancer: comparative 5-year results of 12 versus 6 cycles. J Clin Oncol. 1983 Jan;1(1):2-10. link to original article PubMed
Hubay CA, Pearson OH, Marshall JS, Rhodes RS, Debanne SM, Mansour EG, Hermann RE, Jones JC, Flynn WJ, Eckert C, McGuire WL. Antiestrogen, cytotoxic chemotherapy, and bacillus Calmette-Guerin vaccination in stage II breast cancer: a preliminary report. Surgery. 1980 May;87(5):494-501. link to original article PubMed
1. Update: Hubay CA, Pearson OH, Marshall JS, Rhodes RS, DeBanne SM, Rosenblatt J, Mansour EG, Hermann RE, Jones JC, Flynn WJ, Eckert C, McGuire WL. Adjuvant chemotherapy, antiestrogen therapy and immunotherapy for stage II breast cancer: 45-month follow-up of a prospective, randomized clinical trial. Cancer. 1980 Dec 15;46(12 Suppl):2805-8. link to original article PubMed
DBCG 77B: Brincker H, Mouridsen HT, Andersen KW. Adjuvant chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide or CMF in premenopausal women with stage II breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1983;3(1):91-5. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
1. Update: Ejlertsen B, Mouridsen HT, Jensen MB, Andersen J, Andersson M, Kamby C, Knoop AS; Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group. Cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil; oral cyclophosphamide; levamisole; or no adjuvant therapy for patients with high-risk, premenopausal breast cancer. Cancer. 2010 May 1;116(9):2081-9. link to original article PubMed
Howell A, Bush H, George WD, Howat JM, Crowther D, Sellwood RA, Rubens RD, Hayward JL, Bulbrook RD, Fentiman IS, Chaudary M. Controlled trial of adjuvant chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil for breast cancer. Lancet. 1984 Aug 11;2(8398):307-11. link to original article PubMed
ECOG E5177: Tormey DC, Gray R, Gilchrist K, Grage T, Carbone PP, Wolter J, Woll JE, Cummings FJ. Adjuvant chemohormonal therapy with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil, and prednisone (CMFP) or CMFP plus tamoxifen compared with CMF for premenopausal breast cancer patients: an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group trial. Cancer. 1990 Jan 15;65(2):200-6. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
Milan trial: Buzzoni R, Bonadonna G, Valagussa P, Zambetti M. Adjuvant chemotherapy with doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil in the treatment of resectable breast cancer with more than three positive axillary nodes. J Clin Oncol. 1991 Dec;9(12):2134-40. link to original article PubMed
1. Update: Bonadonna G, Zambetti M, Valagussa P. Sequential or alternating doxorubicin and CMF regimens in breast cancer with more than three positive nodes: ten-year results. JAMA. 1995 Feb 15;273(7):542-7. link to original article PubMed
Stewart HJ, Forrest APM, Hawkins RA, Prescott RJ, Smith DC, Everington D, Richards MA, George WD; Scottish Cancer Trials Breast Group and ICRF Breast Unit Guy's Hospital London. Adjuvant ovarian ablation versus CMF chemotherapy in premenopausal women with pathological stage II breast carcinoma: the Scottish trial. Lancet. 1993 May 22;341(8856):1293-8. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
EORTC 09771: Clahsen PC, van de Velde CJ, Welvaart K, Repelaer van Driel OJ, Sylvester RJ; Cooperating Investigators. Ten-year results of a randomized trial evaluating prolonged low-dose adjuvant chemotherapy in node-positive breast cancer: a joint European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer-Dutch Breast Cancer Working Party Study. J Clin Oncol. 1995 Jan;13(1):33-41. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
Coombes RC, Bliss JM, Wils J, Morvan F, Espié M, Amadori D, Gambrosier P, Richards M, Aapro M, Villar-Grimalt A, McArdle C, Pérez-López FR, Vassilopoulos P, Ferreira EP, Chilvers CE, Coombes G, Woods EM, Marty M; International Collaborative Cancer Group. Adjuvant cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil versus fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide chemotherapy in premenopausal women with axillary node-positive operable breast cancer: results of a randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 1996 Jan;14(1):35-45. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
OncoFrance: Misset JL, di Palma M, Delgado M, Plagne R, Chollet P, Fumoleau P, Le Mevel B, Belpomme D, Guerrin J, Fargeot P, Metz R, Ithzaki M, Hill C, Mathé G. Adjuvant treatment of node-positive breast cancer with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, fluorouracil, and vincristine versus cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil: final report after a 16-year median follow-up duration. J Clin Oncol. 1996 Apr;14(4):1136-45. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
IBCSG VI: Castiglione-Gertsch M, Goldhirsch A; International Breast Cancer Study Group. Duration and reintroduction of adjuvant chemotherapy for node-positive premenopausal breast cancer patients. J Clin Oncol. 1996 Jun;14(6):1885-94. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
1. Pooled QoL analysis: Hürny C, Bernhard J, Coates AS, Castiglione-Gertsch M, Peterson HF, Gelber RD, Forbes JF, Rudenstam CM, Simoncini E, Crivellari D, Goldhirsch A, Senn HJ; International Breast Cancer Study Group. Impact of adjuvant therapy on quality of life in women with node-positive operable breast cancer. Lancet. 1996 May 11;347(9011):1279-84. Erratum in: Lancet 1997 Jul 26;350(9073):298. link to original article PubMed
DBCG 82b: Overgaard M, Hansen PS, Overgaard J, Rose C, Andersson M, Bach F, Kjaer M, Gadeberg CC, Mouridsen HT, Jensen MB, Zedeler K. Postoperative radiotherapy in high-risk premenopausal women with breast cancer who receive adjuvant chemotherapy: Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group 82b trial. N Engl J Med. 1997 Oct 2;337(14):949-55. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
Ragaz J, Jackson SM, Le N, Plenderleith IH, Spinelli JJ, Basco VE, Wilson KS, Knowling MA, Coppin CM, Paradis M, Coldman AJ, Olivotto IA. Adjuvant radiotherapy and chemotherapy in node-positive premenopausal women with breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 1997 Oct 2;337(14):956-62. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
Review: Goldhirsch A, Colleoni M, Coates AS, Castiglione-Gertsch M, Gelber RD; International Breast Cancer Study Group. Adding adjuvant CMF chemotherapy to either radiotherapy or tamoxifen: are all CMFs alike?. Ann Oncol. 1998 May;9(5):489-93. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
NCIC-CTG MA.5: Levine MN, Bramwell VH, Pritchard KI, Norris BD, Shepherd LE, Abu-Zahra H, Findlay B, Warr D, Bowman D, Myles J, Arnold A, Vandenberg T, MacKenzie R, Robert J, Ottaway J, Burnell M, Williams CK, Tu D; National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. Randomized trial of intensive cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and fluorouracil chemotherapy compared with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil in premenopausal women with node-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1998 Aug;16(8):2651-8. link to original article PubMed
1. Update: Levine MN, Pritchard KI, Bramwell VH, Shepherd LE, Tu D, Paul N; National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. Randomized trial comparing cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and fluorouracil with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil in premenopausal women with node-positive breast cancer: update of National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group Trial MA5. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Aug 1;23(22):5166-70. link to original article PubMed
2. Subgroup analysis: Pritchard KI, Shepherd LE, O'Malley FP, Andrulis IL, Tu D, Bramwell VH, Levine MN; National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. HER2 and responsiveness of breast cancer to adjuvant chemotherapy. N Engl J Med. 2006 May 18;354(20):2103-11. link to original article PubMed
Amadori D, Nanni O, Marangolo M, Pacini P, Ravaioli A, Rossi A, Gambi A, Catalano G, Perroni D, Scarpi E, Giunchi DC, Tienghi A, Becciolini A, Volpi A. Disease-free survival advantage of adjuvant cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil in patients with node-negative, rapidly proliferating breast cancer: a randomized multicenter study. J Clin Oncol. 2000 Sep;18(17):3125-34. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
1. Update: Amadori D, Nanni O, Volpi A, Casadei Giunchi D, Marangolo M, Livi L, Ravaioli A, Rossi AP, Gambi A, Luzi Fedeli S, Perroni D, Scarpi E, Becciolini A, Silvestrini R. Phase III randomized multicenter study on the effects of adjuvant CMF in patients with node-negative, rapidly proliferating breast cancer: twelve-year results and retrospective subgroup analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008 Mar;108(2):259-64. Epub 2007 May 26. link to original article PubMed
NSABP B-23: Fisher B, Anderson S, Tan-Chiu E, Wolmark N, Wickerham DL, Fisher ER, Dimitrov NV, Atkins JN, Abramson N, Merajver S, Romond EH, Kardinal CG, Shibata HR, Margolese RG, Farrar WB. Tamoxifen and chemotherapy for axillary node-negative, estrogen receptor-negative breast cancer: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-23. J Clin Oncol. 2001 Feb 15;19(4):931-42. link to original article PubMed
Belgian trial: Piccart MJ, Di Leo A, Beauduin M, Vindevoghel A, Michel J, Focan C, Tagnon A, Ries F, Gobert P, Finet C, Closon-Dejardin MT, Dufrane JP, Kerger J, Liebens F, Beauvois S, Bartholomeus S, Dolci S, Lobelle JP, Paesmans M, Nogaret JM. Phase III trial comparing two dose levels of epirubicin combined with cyclophosphamide with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil in node-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2001 Jun 15;19(12):3103-10. link to original article PubMed
1. Update: de Azambuja E, Paesmans M, Beauduin M, Vindevoghel A, Cornez N, Finet C, Ries F, Closon-Dejardin MT, Kerger J, Gobert P, Focan C, Tagnon A, Dolci S, Nogaret JM, di Leo A, Piccart-Gebhart MJ. Long-term benefit of high-dose epirubicin in adjuvant chemotherapy for node-positive breast cancer: 15-year efficacy results of the Belgian multicentre study. J Clin Oncol. 2009 Feb 10;27(5):720-5. Epub 2008 Dec 22. link to original article PubMed
Ron IG, Wigler N, Borovik R, Brufman G, Rizel S, Shani A, Brenner J, Farbstein H, Dale A, Inbar MJ, Brenner HJ, Chaitchik S, Catane R. CMF (cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil) versus CNF (cyclophosphamide, mitoxantrone, 5-fluorouracil) as adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II lymph-node positive breast cancer: a phase III randomized multicenter study. Am J Clin Oncol. 2001 Aug;24(4):323-7. link to original article PubMed
ZEBRA: Jonat W, Kaufmann M, Sauerbrei W, Blamey R, Cuzick J, Namer M, Fogelman I, de Haes JC, de Matteis A, Stewart A, Eiermann W, Szakolczai I, Palmer M, Schumacher M, Geberth M, Lisboa B; Zoladex Early Breast Cancer Research Association Study. Goserelin versus cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil as adjuvant therapy in premenopausal patients with node-positive breast cancer: the Zoladex Early Breast Cancer Research Association study. J Clin Oncol. 2002 Dec 15;20(24):4628-35. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
Zander AR, Kröger N, Schmoor C, Krüger W, Möbus V, Frickhofen N, Metzner B, Schultze W, Berdel WE, Koenigsmann M, Thiel E, Wandt H, Possinger K, Trümper L, Kreienberg R, Carstensen M, Schmidt EH, Jänicke F, Schumacher M, Jonat W. High-dose chemotherapy with autologous hematopoietic stem-cell support compared with standard-dose chemotherapy in breast cancer patients with 10 or more positive lymph nodes: first results of a randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 2004 Jun 15;22(12):2273-83. Epub 2004 Apr 26. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
Leonard RC, Lind M, Twelves C, Coleman R, van Belle S, Wilson C, Ledermann J, Kennedy I, Barrett-Lee P, Perren T, Verrill M, Cameron D, Foster E, Yellowlees A, Crown J; Anglo-Celtic Cooperative Oncology Group. Conventional adjuvant chemotherapy versus single-cycle, autograft-supported, high-dose, late-intensification chemotherapy in high-risk breast cancer patients: a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004 Jul 21;96(14):1076-83. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
INT-0102: Hutchins LF, Green SJ, Ravdin PM, Lew D, Martino S, Abeloff M, Lyss AP, Allred C, Rivkin SE, Osborne CK. Randomized, controlled trial of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil versus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and fluorouracil with and without tamoxifen for high-risk, node-negative breast cancer: treatment results of intergroup protocol INT-0102. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Nov 20;23(33):8313-21. link to original article PubMed
IBCSG 13-93: Colleoni M, Gelber S, Goldhirsch A, Aebi S, Castiglione-Gertsch M, Price KN, Coates AS, Gelber RD; International Breast Cancer Study Group. Tamoxifen after adjuvant chemotherapy for premenopausal women with lymph node-positive breast cancer: International Breast Cancer Study Group Trial 13-93. J Clin Oncol. 2006 Mar 20;24(9):1332-41. Epub 2006 Feb 27. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
NEAT/BR9601: Poole CJ, Earl HM, Hiller L, Dunn JA, Bathers S, Grieve RJ, Spooner DA, Agrawal RK, Fernando IN, Brunt AM, O'Reilly SM, Crawford SM, Rea DW, Simmonds P, Mansi JL, Stanley A, Harvey P, McAdam K, Foster L, Leonard RC, Twelves CJ; NEAT Investigators and the SCTBG. Epirubicin and cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil as adjuvant therapy for early breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2006 Nov 2;355(18):1851-62. link to original article PubMed NCT00003577; NCT00003012
1. Update: Earl HM, Hiller L, Dunn JA, Vallier AL, Bowden SJ, Jordan SD, Blows F, Munro A, Bathers S, Grieve R, Spooner DA, Agrawal R, Fernando I, Brunt AM, O'Reilly SM, Crawford SM, Rea DW, Simmonds P, Mansi JL, Stanley A, McAdam K, Foster L, Leonard RC, Twelves CJ, Cameron D, Bartlett JM, Pharoah P, Provenzano E, Caldas C, Poole CJ; NEAT Investigators and the SCTBG. Adjuvant epirubicin followed by cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and fluorouracil (CMF) vs CMF in early breast cancer: results with over 7 years median follow-up from the randomised phase III NEAT/BR9601 trials. Br J Cancer. 2012 Oct 9;107(8):1257-67. Epub 2012 Sep 11. link to original article link to PMC article PubMed
DBCG 89D: Ejlertsen B, Mouridsen HT, Jensen MB, Andersen J, Cold S, Edlund P, Ewertz M, Jensen BB, Kamby C, Nordenskjold B, Bergh J. Improved outcome from substituting methotrexate with epirubicin: results from a randomised comparison of CMF versus CEF in patients with primary breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2007 Mar;43(5):877-84. Epub 2007 Feb 16. link to original article PubMed
NCRI ABC-CT: Adjuvant Breast Cancer Trials Collaborative Group. Polychemotherapy for early breast cancer: results from the international adjuvant breast cancer chemotherapy randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007 Apr 4;99(7):506-15. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00002582
TABLE: Schmid P, Untch M, Kossé V, Bondar G, Vassiljev L, Tarutinov V, Lehmann U, Maubach L, Meurer J, Wallwiener D, Possinger K. Leuprorelin acetate every-3-months depot versus cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil as adjuvant treatment in premenopausal patients with node-positive breast cancer: the TABLE study. J Clin Oncol. 2007 Jun 20;25(18):2509-15. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
ABCSG-07: Taucher S, Steger GG, Jakesz R, Tausch C, Wette V, Schippinger W, Kwasny W, Reiner G, Greil R, Dubsky P, Poestlberger S, Tschmelitsch J, Samonigg H, Gnant M; ABCSG. The potential risk of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients--results from a prospective randomized trial of the Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group (ABCSG-07). Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008 Nov;112(2):309-16. Epub 2007 Dec 14. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
NSAS BC-01: Watanabe T, Sano M, Takashima S, Kitaya T, Tokuda Y, Yoshimoto M, Kohno N, Nakagami K, Iwata H, Shimozuma K, Sonoo H, Tsuda H, Sakamoto G, Ohashi Y. Oral uracil and tegafur compared with classic cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, fluorouracil as postoperative chemotherapy in patients with node-negative, high-risk breast cancer: National Surgical Adjuvant Study for Breast Cancer 01 trial. J Clin Oncol. 2009 Mar 20;27(9):1368-74. Epub 2009 Feb 9. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00152191
ECTO: Gianni L, Baselga J, Eiermann W, Porta VG, Semiglazov V, Lluch A, Zambetti M, Sabadell D, Raab G, Cussac AL, Bozhok A, Martinez-Agulló A, Greco M, Byakhov M, Lopez JJ, Mansutti M, Valagussa P, Bonadonna G. Phase III trial evaluating the addition of paclitaxel to doxorubicin followed by cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil, as adjuvant or primary systemic therapy: European Cooperative Trial in Operable Breast Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009 May 20;27(15):2474-81. Epub 2009 Mar 30. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00003013
TACT: Ellis P, Barrett-Lee P, Johnson L, Cameron D, Wardley A, O'Reilly S, Verrill M, Smith I, Yarnold J, Coleman R, Earl H, Canney P, Twelves C, Poole C, Bloomfield D, Hopwood P, Johnston S, Dowsett M, Bartlett JM, Ellis I, Peckitt C, Hall E, Bliss JM; TACT Trial Management Group; TACT Trialists. Sequential docetaxel as adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer (TACT): an open-label, phase III, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2009 May 16;373(9676):1681-92. link to original article link to PMC article contains protocol PubMed ISRCTN79718493
CALGB 49907: Muss HB, Berry DA, Cirrincione CT, Theodoulou M, Mauer AM, Kornblith AB, Partridge AH, Dressler LG, Cohen HJ, Becker HP, Kartcheske PA, Wheeler JD, Perez EA, Wolff AC, Gralow JR, Burstein HJ, Mahmood AA, Magrinat G, Parker BA, Hart RD, Grenier D, Norton L, Hudis CA, Winer EP; CALGB. Adjuvant chemotherapy in older women with early-stage breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2009 May 14;360(20):2055-65. Erratum in: N Engl J Med. 2009 Oct 22;361(17):1714. Magrinat, Gutav [corrected to Magrinat, Gustav]. link to original article link to PMC article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00024102
Kimura M, Tominaga T, Takatsuka Y, Toi M, Abe R, Koyama H, Takashima S, Nomura Y, Miura S, Kimijima I, Tashiro H, Ohashi Y; Adjuvant CEF Research Group for Breast Cancer. Randomized trial of cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and fluorouracil chemotherapy compared with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil with node-positive breast cancer in Japan. Breast Cancer. 2010 Jul;17(3):190-8. Epub 2009 Jul 3. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
ELDA: Perrone F, Nuzzo F, Di Rella F, Gravina A, Iodice G, Labonia V, Landi G, Pacilio C, Rossi E, De Laurentiis M, D'Aiuto M, Botti G, Forestieri V, Lauria R, De Placido S, Tinessa V, Daniele B, Gori S, Colantuoni G, Barni S, Riccardi F, De Maio E, Montanino A, Morabito A, Daniele G, Di Maio M, Piccirillo MC, Signoriello S, Gallo C, de Matteis A. Weekly docetaxel versus CMF as adjuvant chemotherapy for older women with early breast cancer: final results of the randomized phase III ELDA trial. Ann Oncol. 2015 Apr;26(4):675-82. Epub 2014 Dec 8. link to original article contains protocol PubMed NCT00331097
TACT2: Cameron D, Morden JP, Canney P, Velikova G, Coleman R, Bartlett J, Agrawal R, Banerji J, Bertelli G, Bloomfield D, Brunt AM, Earl H, Ellis P, Gaunt C, Gillman A, Hearfield N, Laing R, Murray N, Couper N, Stein RC, Verrill M, Wardley A, Barrett-Lee P, Bliss JM; TACT2 Investigators. Accelerated versus standard epirubicin followed by cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil or capecitabine as adjuvant therapy for breast cancer in the randomised UK TACT2 trial (CRUK/05/19): a multicentre, phase 3, open-label, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017 Jul;18(7):929-945. Epub 2017 Jun 7. link to original article link to PMC article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00301925

CMFT

back to top

CMFT: Cyclophosphamide, Methotrexate, Fluorouracil, Tamoxifen

Regimen variant #1, 600/40/600/30

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Overgaard et al. 1999 (DBCG 82C)	1982-1990	Phase 3 (E-esc)	1. Tamoxifen	Superior DFS¹
Overgaard et al. 1999 (DBCG 82C)	1982-1990	Phase 3 (E-esc)	2. Tamoxifen & RT	Not reported

¹Reported efficacy for this arm versus tamoxifen monotherapy is based on the 2013 update.

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Methotrexate (MTX) 40 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Fluorouracil (5-FU) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

Endocrine therapy

Tamoxifen (Nolvadex) 30 mg PO once per day

28-day cycle for 9 cycles (tamoxifen continued for one year total)

Regimen variant #2, 840/50/800/40

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Hubay et al. 1980	NR	Randomized (E-RT-esc)	1. CMF	Seems to have superior RFS
Hubay et al. 1980	NR	Randomized (E-RT-esc)	2. CMFT & BCG	Did not meet endpoints of RFS/OS

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 30 mg/m² PO twice per day on days 1 to 14
Methotrexate (MTX) 25 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8
Fluorouracil (5-FU) 400 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8

Endocrine therapy

Tamoxifen (Nolvadex) 20 mg PO twice per day

28-day cycle for 12 cycles

References

Hubay CA, Pearson OH, Marshall JS, Rhodes RS, Debanne SM, Mansour EG, Hermann RE, Jones JC, Flynn WJ, Eckert C, McGuire WL. Antiestrogen, cytotoxic chemotherapy, and bacillus Calmette-Guerin vaccination in stage II breast cancer: a preliminary report. Surgery. 1980 May;87(5):494-501. link to original article PubMed
1. Update: Hubay CA, Pearson OH, Marshall JS, Rhodes RS, DeBanne SM, Rosenblatt J, Mansour EG, Hermann RE, Jones JC, Flynn WJ, Eckert C, McGuire WL. Adjuvant chemotherapy, antiestrogen therapy and immunotherapy for stage II breast cancer: 45-month follow-up of a prospective, randomized clinical trial. Cancer. 1980 Dec 15;46(12 Suppl):2805-8. link to original article PubMed
NCIC-CTG MA.4: Pritchard KI, Paterson AH, Paul NA, Zee B, Fine S, Pater J; National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. Increased thromboembolic complications with concurrent tamoxifen and chemotherapy in a randomized trial of adjuvant therapy for women with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1996 Oct;14(10):2731-7. link to original article PubMed
1. Update: Pritchard KI, Paterson AH, Fine S, Paul NA, Zee B, Shepherd LE, Abu-Zahra H, Ragaz J, Knowling M, Levine MN, Verma S, Perrault D, Walde PL, Bramwell VH, Poljicak M, Boyd N, Warr D, Norris BD, Bowman D, Armitage GR, Weizel H, Buckman RA; NCIC-CTG. Randomized trial of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil chemotherapy added to tamoxifen as adjuvant therapy in postmenopausal women with node-positive estrogen and/or progesterone receptor-positive breast cancer: a report of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. J Clin Oncol. 1997 Jun;15(6):2302-11. link to original article PubMed
NSABP B-20: Fisher B, Dignam J, Wolmark N, DeCillis A, Emir B, Wickerham DL, Bryant J, Dimitrov NV, Abramson N, Atkins JN, Shibata H, Deschenes L, Margolese RG. Tamoxifen and chemotherapy for lymph node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1997 Nov 19;89(22):1673-82. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
1. Update: Fisher B, Jeong JH, Bryant J, Anderson S, Dignam J, Fisher ER, Wolmark N; National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project randomised clinical trials. Treatment of lymph-node-negative, oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer: long-term findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project randomised clinical trials. Lancet. 2004 Sep 4-10;364(9437):858-68. link to original article PubMed
2. Pooled update: Taghian AG, Jeong JH, Mamounas EP, Parda DS, Deutsch M, Costantino JP, Wolmark N. Low locoregional recurrence rate among node-negative breast cancer patients with tumors 5 cm or larger treated by mastectomy, with or without adjuvant systemic therapy and without radiotherapy: results from five national surgical adjuvant breast and bowel project randomized clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2006 Aug 20;24(24):3927-32. link to original article PubMed
DBCG 82C: Overgaard M, Jensen MB, Overgaard J, Hansen PS, Rose C, Andersson M, Kamby C, Kjaer M, Gadeberg CC, Rasmussen BB, Blichert-Toft M, Mouridsen HT. Postoperative radiotherapy in high-risk postmenopausal breast-cancer patients given adjuvant tamoxifen: Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group DBCG 82c randomised trial. Lancet. 1999 May 15;353(9165):1641-8. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
1. Update: Ejlertsen B, Jensen MB, Elversang J, Rasmussen BB, Andersson M, Andersen J, Nielsen DL, Cold S, Mouridsen HT. One year of adjuvant tamoxifen compared with chemotherapy and tamoxifen in postmenopausal patients with stage II breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2013 Sep;49(14):2986-94. Epub 2013 Jun 8. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed

Dose-dense Cyclophosphamide monotherapy

back to top

ddC: dose-dense Cyclophosphamide

Regimen variant #1, 600 mg/m²

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Citron et al. 2003 (CALGB 9741)	1997-1999	Phase 3 (E-esc)	See link	See link

Note: this is a component of a sequential treatment protocol; to our knowledge there are no references to support using it as a stand-alone treatment.

Preceding treatment

ddT x 4

Chemotherapy

Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

Supportive medications

Filgrastim (Neupogen) 5 mcg/kg (rounded to either 300 or 480 mcg) SC once per day on days 3 to 10
- Note: Citron et al. 2003 says the schedule was "filgrastim days 3 to 10 of each cycle (a total of seven doses)," so it is unclear whether 7 or 8 doses was actually used).

14-day cycle for 4 cycles

Regimen variant #2, 800 mg/m²

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence
Kahan et al. 2005	2000-2003	Phase II

Note: this is a component of a sequential treatment protocol; to our knowledge there are no references to support using it as a stand-alone treatment.

Preceding treatment

ddT x 4

Chemotherapy

Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 800 mg/m² IV once on day 1

Supportive medications

Filgrastim (Neupogen)

14-day cycle for 4 cycles

References

CALGB 9741: Citron ML, Berry DA, Cirrincione C, Hudis C, Winer EP, Gradishar WJ, Davidson NE, Martino S, Livingston R, Ingle JN, Perez EA, Carpenter J, Hurd D, Holland JF, Smith BL, Sartor CI, Leung EH, Abrams J, Schilsky RL, Muss HB, Norton L. Randomized trial of dose-dense versus conventionally scheduled and sequential versus concurrent combination chemotherapy as postoperative adjuvant treatment of node-positive primary breast cancer: first report of Intergroup Trial C9741/Cancer and Leukemia Group B Trial 9741. J Clin Oncol. 2003 Apr 15;21(8):1431-9. Epub 2003 Feb 13. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00003088
Kahan Z, Uhercsak G, Hajnal-Papp R, Boda K, Thurzo L. Dose-dense sequential adriamycin-paclitaxel-cyclophosphamide chemotherapy is well tolerated and safe in high-risk early breast cancer. Oncology. 2005;68(4-6):446-53. Epub 2005 Jul 13. link to original article PubMed
1. Update: Kelemen G, Uhercsák G, Ormándi K, Eller J, Thurzó L, Kahán Z. Long-term efficiency and toxicity of adjuvant dose-dense sequential adriamycin-Paclitaxel-cyclophosphamide chemotherapy in high-risk breast cancer. Oncology. 2010;78(3-4):271-3. Epub 2010 Jun 7. link to original article PubMed

Cyclophosphamide & Docetaxel (TC)

back to top

TC: Taxotere (Docetaxel) & Cyclophosphamide
DC: Docetaxel & Cyclophosphamide

Regimen variant #1, 4 cycles

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Jones et al. 2006 (USOR 9735)	1997-1999	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	AC	Seems to have superior OS
Blum et al. 2017 (USOR 06-090)	2007-2009	Phase 3 (C)	TAC	Seems to have inferior IDFS
Blum et al. 2017 (NSABP-46-I/USOR 07132)	2009-2012	Phase 3 (C)	TAC	Seems to have inferior IDFS
Blum et al. 2017 (NSABP B-49)	2012-2013	Phase 3 (C)	TAC	Seems to have inferior IDFS

Note: Blum et al. 2017 is a pooled analysis of three RCTs, some of which had arms other than TAC and TC. Refer to the paper for further details.

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Docetaxel (Taxotere) 75 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

Supportive medications

All cycles given with Filgrastim (Neupogen) support

21-day cycle for 4 cycles

Regimen variant #2, 6 cycles

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Nitz et al. 2019 (WSG PlanB)	2000-2005	Phase 3 (E-de-esc)	EC, then D	Non-inferior DFS
Mavroudis et al. 2016 (HORG CT/07.17)	2007-2013	Phase 3 (E-de-esc)	ddFEC, then D	Inconclusive whether non-inferior DFS36
Ejlertsen et al. 2017 (DBCG 07-READ)	2008-2012	Phase 3 (E-de-esc)	EC, then D	Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS
Fehrenbacher et al. 2019 (NSABP B-47)	2011-2015	Phase 3 (C)	1. AC-T & Trastuzumab 2. Dose-dense AC-T & Trastuzumab 3. TC & Trastuzumab	Did not meet primary endpoint of IDFS

Biomarker eligiblity criteria

DBCG 07-READ: TOP2A normal as determined by FISH
NSABP B-47: HER2 IHC of 1+ or 2+ with FISH ratio less than 2 or HER2 gene copy number less than 4

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Docetaxel (Taxotere) 75 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 6 cycles

References

USOR 9735: Jones SE, Savin MA, Holmes FA, O'Shaughnessy JA, Blum JL, Vukelja S, McIntyre KJ, Pippen JE, Bordelon JH, Kirby R, Sandbach J, Hyman WJ, Khandelwal P, Negron AG, Richards DA, Anthony SP, Mennel RG, Boehm KA, Meyer WG, Asmar L. Phase III trial comparing doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide with docetaxel plus cyclophosphamide as adjuvant therapy for operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006 Dec 1;24(34):5381-7. Erratum in: J Clin Oncol. 2007 May 1;25(13):1819. link to original article PubMed
1. Update: Jones S, Holmes FA, O'Shaughnessy J, Blum JL, Vukelja SJ, McIntyre KJ, Pippen JE, Bordelon JH, Kirby RL, Sandbach J, Hyman WJ, Richards DA, Mennel RG, Boehm KA, Meyer WG, Asmar L, Mackey D, Riedel S, Muss H, Savin MA. Docetaxel with cyclophosphamide is associated with an overall survival benefit compared with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide: 7-year follow-up of US Oncology research trial 9735. J Clin Oncol. 2009 Mar 10;27(8):1177-83. Epub 2009 Feb 9. link to original article PubMed
HORG CT/07.17: Mavroudis D, Matikas A, Malamos N, Papakotoulas P, Kakolyris S, Boukovinas I, Athanasiadis A, Kentepozidis N, Ziras N, Katsaounis P, Saloustros E, Georgoulias V; HORG. Dose-dense FEC followed by docetaxel versus docetaxel plus cyclophosphamide as adjuvant chemotherapy in women with HER2-negative, axillary lymph node-positive early breast cancer: a multicenter randomized study by the Hellenic Oncology Research Group (HORG). Ann Oncol. 2016 Oct;27(10):1873-8. Epub 2016 Aug 8. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT01985724
USOR 06-090; NSABP-46-I/USOR 07132; NSABP B-49: Blum JL, Flynn PJ, Yothers G, Asmar L, Geyer CE Jr, Jacobs SA, Robert NJ, Hopkins JO, O'Shaughnessy JA, Dang CT, Gómez HL, Fehrenbacher L, Vukelja SJ, Lyss AP, Paul D, Brufsky AM, Jeong JH, Colangelo LH, Swain SM, Mamounas EP, Jones SE, Wolmark N. Anthracyclines in early breast cancer: The ABC trials-USOR 06-090, NSABP B-46-I/USOR 07132, and NSABP B-49 (NRG Oncology). J Clin Oncol. 2017 Aug 10;35(23):2647-2655. Epub 2017 Apr 11. link to original article link to PMC article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00493870; NCT00887536; NCT01547741
DBCG 07-READ: Ejlertsen B, Tuxen MK, Jakobsen EH, Jensen MB, Knoop AS, Højris I, Ewertz M, Balslev E, Danø H, Vestlev PM, Kenholm J, Nielsen DL, Bechmann T, Andersson M, Cold S, Nielsen HM, Maae E, Carlsen D, Mouridsen HT. Adjuvant cyclophosphamide and docetaxel with or without epirubicin for early TOP2A-normal breast cancer: DBCG 07-READ, an open-label, phase III, randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 2017 Aug 10;35(23):2639-2646. Epub 2017 Jun 29. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00689156
WSG PlanB: Nitz U, Gluz O, Clemens M, Malter W, Reimer T, Nuding B, Aktas B, Stefek A, Pollmanns A, Lorenz-Salehi F, Uleer C, Krabisch P, Kuemmel S, Liedtke C, Shak S, Wuerstlein R, Christgen M, Kates RE, Kreipe HH, Harbeck N; West German Study Group. West German Study PlanB trial: adjuvant four cycles of epirubicin and cyclophosphamide plus docetaxel versus six cycles of docetaxel and cyclophosphamide in HER2-negative early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Apr 1;37(10):799-808. Epub 2019 Feb 20. link to original article contains protocol PubMed NCT01049425
NSABP B-47: Fehrenbacher L, Cecchini RS, Geyer CE Jr, Rastogi P, Costantino JP, Atkins JN, Crown JP, Polikoff J, Boileau JF, Provencher L, Stokoe C, Moore TD, Robidoux A, Flynn PJ, Borges VF, Albain KS, Swain SM, Paik S, Mamounas EP, Wolmark N. NSABP B-47/NRG Oncology Phase III Randomized Trial Comparing Adjuvant Chemotherapy With or Without Trastuzumab in High-Risk Invasive Breast Cancer Negative for HER2 by FISH and With IHC 1+ or 2. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Feb 10;38(5):444-453. Epub 2019 Dec 10. link to original article link to PMC article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT01275677

Cyclophosphamide & Doxorubicin (AC)

back to top

AC: Adriamycin (Doxorubicin) and Cyclophosphamide
CA: Cyclophosphamide and Adriamycin (Doxorubicin)

Regimen variant #1, 54/1200 x 6

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Linden et al. 2007 (INT-0137)	1994-1997	Phase 3 (C)	A, then C	Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 54 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 1200 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 6 cycles

Regimen variant #2, 60/600 x 4

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Fisher et al. 1997 (NSABP B-18)	1988-1993	Phase 3 (C)	AC; neoadjuvant	Inferior resectability
Fisher et al. 1997 (NSABP B-22)	1989-1991	Phase 3 (C)	1. AC; intensified 2. AC; intensified & increased	Did not meet primary endpoints of DFS/OS
Fisher et al. 2001 (NSABP B-23)	1991-1998	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	CMF	Did not meet primary endpoint of OS
Içli et al. 2001	1992-1996	Non-randomized portion of RCT
Colleoni et al. 2006 (IBCSG 13-93)	1993-1999	Non-randomized portion of RCT
Henderson et al. 2003 (INT 0148/CALGB 9344)	1994-1999	Phase 3 (C)	1. AC; high-dose 2. AC; very high dose	Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS
Mamounas et al. 2005 (NSABP B-28)	1995-1998	Non-randomized portion of RCT
Jones et al. 2006 (USOR 9735)	1997-1999	Phase 3 (C)	TC	Seems to have inferior OS
Francis et al. 2008 (BIG 02-98)	1998-2001	Phase 3 (C)	See link	See link
Goldstein et al. 2008 (ECOG E2197)	1998-2000	Phase 3 (C)	AT (Taxotere)	Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS
Sparano et al. 2008 (ECOG E1199)	1999-2002	Non-randomized portion of RCT
Brain et al. 2005 (RAPP-01)	1999-2003	Phase 3 (C)	AT (Taxotere)	Not reported
Muss et al. 2009 (CALGB 49907)	2001-2006	Phase 3 (C)	Capecitabine	Seems to have superior OS
Watanabe et al. 2017 (NSAS BC-02)	2001-2006	Phase 3 (C)	See link	See link
Miller et al. 2018 (ECOG E5103)	2007-2011	Phase 3 (C)	See link	See link

Preceding treatment

Most protocols: Surgery
INT 0148/CALGB 9344: Surgery, within 84 days

Chemotherapy

Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 60 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 4 cycles

Subsequent treatment

NSABP B-23: Tamoxifen x 5 y versus placebo
Içli et al. 2001: EP x 2 versus no further treatment
INT 0148/CALGB 9344 and NSABP B-28: q3wk T (Taxol) x 4 versus no further therapy
IBCSG 13-93: CMF x 3, then Tamoxifen x 5 y versus no further treatment
BIG 02-98: CMF x 3
ECOG E1199: q3wk T (Taxotere) x 4 versus weekly T (Taxotere) x 12 versus q3wk T (Taxol) x 4 versus weekly T (Taxol) x 12
NSAS BC-02: q3wk T (Taxotere) x 4 versus T (Taxol) q3wk x 4
ECOG E5103: weekly T (Taxol) x 12

Regimen variant #3, 80/600 x 4

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence
Moore et al. 2007 (SWOG S9623)	1996-2001	Non-randomized portion of phase III RCT

Note: this is a component of a sequential treatment protocol; to our knowledge there are no references to support using it as a stand-alone treatment.

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 80 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 4 cycles

Subsequent treatment

STAMP-I or STAMP-V, with auto HSCT

References

NSABP B-22: Fisher B, Anderson S, Wickerham DL, DeCillis A, Dimitrov N, Mamounas E, Wolmark N, Pugh R, Atkins JN, Meyers FJ, Abramson N, Wolter J, Bornstein RS, Levy L, Romond EH, Caggiano V, Grimaldi M, Jochimsen P, Deckers P. Increased intensification and total dose of cyclophosphamide in a doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide regimen for the treatment of primary breast cancer: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-22. J Clin Oncol. 1997 May;15(5):1858-69. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
1. Pooled update: Taghian A, Jeong JH, Mamounas E, Anderson S, Bryant J, Deutsch M, Wolmark N. Patterns of locoregional failure in patients with operable breast cancer treated by mastectomy and adjuvant chemotherapy with or without tamoxifen and without radiotherapy: results from five National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project randomized clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2004 Nov 1;22(21):4247-54. Epub 2004 Sep 27. link to original article PubMed
NSABP B-18: Fisher B, Brown A, Mamounas E, Wieand S, Robidoux A, Margolese RG, Cruz AB Jr, Fisher ER, Wickerham DL, Wolmark N, DeCillis A, Hoehn JL, Lees AW, Dimitrov NV. Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on local-regional disease in women with operable breast cancer: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-18. J Clin Oncol. 1997 Jul;15(7):2483-93. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
1. Update: Fisher B, Bryant J, Wolmark N, Mamounas E, Brown A, Fisher ER, Wickerham DL, Begovic M, DeCillis A, Robidoux A, Margolese RG, Cruz AB Jr, Hoehn JL, Lees AW, Dimitrov NV, Bear HD. Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on the outcome of women with operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1998 Aug;16(8):2672-85. link to original article PubMed
2. Update: Wolmark N, Wang J, Mamounas E, Bryant J, Fisher B. Preoperative chemotherapy in patients with operable breast cancer: nine-year results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-18. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;(30):96-102. link to original article PubMed
3. Pooled update: Taghian A, Jeong JH, Mamounas E, Anderson S, Bryant J, Deutsch M, Wolmark N. Patterns of locoregional failure in patients with operable breast cancer treated by mastectomy and adjuvant chemotherapy with or without tamoxifen and without radiotherapy: results from five National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project randomized clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2004 Nov 1;22(21):4247-54. Epub 2004 Sep 27. link to original article PubMed
4. Pooled update: Rastogi P, Anderson SJ, Bear HD, Geyer CE, Kahlenberg MS, Robidoux A, Margolese RG, Hoehn JL, Vogel VG, Dakhil SR, Tamkus D, King KM, Pajon ER, Wright MJ, Robert J, Paik S, Mamounas EP, Wolmark N. Preoperative chemotherapy: updates of National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocols B-18 and B-27. J Clin Oncol. 2008 Feb 10;26(5):778-85. Erratum in: J Clin Oncol. 2008 Jun 1;26(16):2793. link to original article PubMed
NSABP B-23: Fisher B, Anderson S, Tan-Chiu E, Wolmark N, Wickerham DL, Fisher ER, Dimitrov NV, Atkins JN, Abramson N, Merajver S, Romond EH, Kardinal CG, Shibata HR, Margolese RG, Farrar WB. Tamoxifen and chemotherapy for axillary node-negative, estrogen receptor-negative breast cancer: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-23. J Clin Oncol. 2001 Feb 15;19(4):931-42. link to original article PubMed
Içli F, Akbulut H, Dinçol D, Onur H, Demirkazik A, Cam R, Cay F, Demirci S, Uner A, Erekul S. A randomized trial of four cycles of adjuvant AC (adriamycin + cyclophosphamide) +/- two cycles of EP (etoposide + cisplatin) in node positive patients with breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2001 Jul;12(7):1011-3. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
INT 0148/CALGB 9344: Henderson IC, Berry DA, Demetri GD, Cirrincione CT, Goldstein LJ, Martino S, Ingle JN, Cooper MR, Hayes DF, Tkaczuk KH, Fleming G, Holland JF, Duggan DB, Carpenter JT, Frei E 3rd, Schilsky RL, Wood WC, Muss HB, Norton L. Improved outcomes from adding sequential paclitaxel but not from escalating doxorubicin dose in an adjuvant chemotherapy regimen for patients with node-positive primary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2003 Mar 15;21(6):976-83. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
NSABP B-28: Mamounas EP, Bryant J, Lembersky B, Fehrenbacher L, Sedlacek SM, Fisher B, Wickerham DL, Yothers G, Soran A, Wolmark N. Paclitaxel after doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide as adjuvant chemotherapy for node-positive breast cancer: results from NSABP B-28. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Jun 1;23(16):3686-96. Epub 2005 May 16. link to original article PubMed
RAPP-01: Brain EG, Bachelot T, Serin D, Kirscher S, Graic Y, Eymard JC, Extra JM, Combe M, Fourme E, Noguès C, Rouëssé J; RAPP-01 Trial Investigators. Life-threatening sepsis associated with adjuvant doxorubicin plus docetaxel for intermediate-risk breast cancer. JAMA. 2005 May 18;293(19):2367-71. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
IBCSG 13-93: Colleoni M, Gelber S, Goldhirsch A, Aebi S, Castiglione-Gertsch M, Price KN, Coates AS, Gelber RD; International Breast Cancer Study Group. Tamoxifen after adjuvant chemotherapy for premenopausal women with lymph node-positive breast cancer: International Breast Cancer Study Group Trial 13-93. J Clin Oncol. 2006 Mar 20;24(9):1332-41. Epub 2006 Feb 27. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
USOR 9735: Jones SE, Savin MA, Holmes FA, O'Shaughnessy JA, Blum JL, Vukelja S, McIntyre KJ, Pippen JE, Bordelon JH, Kirby R, Sandbach J, Hyman WJ, Khandelwal P, Negron AG, Richards DA, Anthony SP, Mennel RG, Boehm KA, Meyer WG, Asmar L. Phase III trial comparing doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide with docetaxel plus cyclophosphamide as adjuvant therapy for operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006 Dec 1;24(34):5381-7. Erratum in: J Clin Oncol. 2007 May 1;25(13):1819. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
1. Update: Jones S, Holmes FA, O'Shaughnessy J, Blum JL, Vukelja SJ, McIntyre KJ, Pippen JE, Bordelon JH, Kirby RL, Sandbach J, Hyman WJ, Richards DA, Mennel RG, Boehm KA, Meyer WG, Asmar L, Mackey D, Riedel S, Muss H, Savin MA. Docetaxel with cyclophosphamide is associated with an overall survival benefit compared with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide: 7-year follow-up of US Oncology research trial 9735. J Clin Oncol. 2009 Mar 10;27(8):1177-83. Epub 2009 Feb 9. link to original article PubMed
INT-0137: Linden HM, Haskell CM, Green SJ, Osborne CK, Sledge GW Jr, Shapiro CL, Ingle JN, Lew D, Hutchins LF, Livingston RB, Martino S. Sequenced compared with simultaneous anthracycline and cyclophosphamide in high-risk stage I and II breast cancer: final analysis from INT-0137 (S9313). J Clin Oncol. 2007 Feb 20;25(6):656-61. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
SWOG S9623: Moore HC, Green SJ, Gralow JR, Bearman SI, Lew D, Barlow WE, Hudis C, Wolff AC, Ingle JN, Chew HK, Elias AD, Livingston RB, Martino S; SWOG. Intensive dose-dense compared with high-dose adjuvant chemotherapy for high-risk operable breast cancer: Southwest Oncology Group/Intergroup study 9623. J Clin Oncol. 2007 May 1;25(13):1677-82. Epub 2007 Apr 2. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00002772
BIG 02-98: Francis P, Crown J, Di Leo A, Buyse M, Balil A, Andersson M, Nordenskjöld B, Lang I, Jakesz R, Vorobiof D, Gutiérrez J, van Hazel G, Dolci S, Jamin S, Bendahmane B, Gelber RD, Goldhirsch A, Castiglione-Gertsch M, Piccart-Gebhart M; BIG. Adjuvant chemotherapy with sequential or concurrent anthracycline and docetaxel: Breast International Group 02-98 randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008 Jan 16;100(2):121-33. Epub 2008 Jan 8. Erratum in: J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008 Nov 19;100(22):1655. link to original article contains protocol PubMed NCT00174655
1. Update: Oakman C, Francis PA, Crown J, Quinaux E, Buyse M, De Azambuja E, Margeli Vila M, Andersson M, Nordenskjöld B, Jakesz R, Thürlimann B, Gutiérrez J, Harvey V, Punzalan L, Dell'orto P, Larsimont D, Steinberg I, Gelber RD, Piccart-Gebhart M, Viale G, Di Leo A. Overall survival benefit for sequential doxorubicin-docetaxel compared with concurrent doxorubicin and docetaxel in node-positive breast cancer--8-year results of the Breast International Group 02-98 phase III trial. Ann Oncol. 2013 May;24(5):1203-11. Epub 2013 Jan 4. link to original article PubMed
2. Update: Sonnenblick A, Francis PA, Azim HA Jr, de Azambuja E, Nordenskjöld B, Gutiérez J, Quinaux E, Mastropasqua MG, Ameye L, Anderson M, Lluch A, Gnant M, Goldhirsch A, Di Leo A, Barnadas A, Cortes-Funes H, Piccart M, Crown J. Final 10-year results of the Breast International Group 2-98 phase III trial and the role of Ki67 in predicting benefit of adjuvant docetaxel in patients with oestrogen receptor positive breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2015 Aug;51(12):1481-9. Epub 2015 Jun 11. link to original article PubMed
ECOG E1199: Sparano JA, Wang M, Martino S, Jones V, Perez EA, Saphner T, Wolff AC, Sledge GW Jr, Wood WC, Davidson NE. Weekly paclitaxel in the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2008 Apr 17;358(16):1663-71. link to original article link to PMC article PubMed NCT00004125
1. Update: Sparano JA, Zhao F, Martino S, Ligibel JA, Perez EA, Saphner T, Wolff AC, Sledge GW Jr, Wood WC, Davidson NE. Long-term follow-up of the E1199 phase III trial evaluating the role of taxane and schedule in operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015 Jul 20;33(21):2353-60. Epub 2015 Jun 15. link to original article link to PMC article PubMed
ECOG E2197: Goldstein LJ, O'Neill A, Sparano JA, Perez EA, Shulman LN, Martino S, Davidson NE. Concurrent doxorubicin plus docetaxel is not more effective than concurrent doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide in operable breast cancer with 0 to 3 positive axillary nodes: North American Breast Cancer Intergroup Trial E 2197. J Clin Oncol. 2008 Sep 1;26(25):4092-9. Epub 2008 Aug 4. link to original article link to PMC article contains protocol PubMed NCT00003519
CALGB 49907: Muss HB, Berry DA, Cirrincione CT, Theodoulou M, Mauer AM, Kornblith AB, Partridge AH, Dressler LG, Cohen HJ, Becker HP, Kartcheske PA, Wheeler JD, Perez EA, Wolff AC, Gralow JR, Burstein HJ, Mahmood AA, Magrinat G, Parker BA, Hart RD, Grenier D, Norton L, Hudis CA, Winer EP; CALGB. Adjuvant chemotherapy in older women with early-stage breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2009 May 14;360(20):2055-65. Erratum in: N Engl J Med. 2009 Oct 22;361(17):1714. Magrinat, Gutav [corrected to Magrinat, Gustav]. link to original article link to PMC article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00024102
NSAS BC-02: Watanabe T, Kuranami M, Inoue K, Masuda N, Aogi K, Ohno S, Iwata H, Mukai H, Uemura Y, Ohashi Y. Comparison of an AC-taxane versus AC-free regimen and paclitaxel versus docetaxel in patients with lymph node-positive breast cancer: final results of the National Surgical Adjuvant Study of Breast Cancer 02 trial, a randomized comparative phase 3 study. Cancer. 2017 Mar 1;123(5):759-768. Epub 2017 Jan 12. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
ECOG E5103: Miller KD, O'Neill A, Gradishar W, Hobday TJ, Goldstein LJ, Mayer IA, Bloom S, Brufsky AM, Tevaarwerk AJ, Sparano JA, Le-Lindqwister NA, Hendricks CB, Northfelt DW, Dang CT, Sledge GW Jr. Double-blind phase III trial of adjuvant chemotherapy with and without bevacizumab in patients with lymph node-positive and high-risk lymph node-negative breast cancer (E5103). J Clin Oncol. 2018 Sep 1;36(25):2621-2629. Epub 2018 Jul 24. link to original article refers to ECOG E1199 protocol PubMed NCT00433511

Dose-dense Cyclophosphamide & Doxorubicin (ddAC)

back to top

ddAC: dose-dense Adriamycin (Doxorubicin) and Cyclophosphamide

Regimen variant #1, 60/600 x 4

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Shulman et al. 2012 (CALGB 40101)	2002-2008	Phase 3 (E-de-esc)	1. ddAC x 6	Did not meet primary endpoint of RFS
			2. ddT x 4	Did not meet primary endpoint of RFS
			3. ddT x 6	Did not meet primary endpoint of RFS
Burstein et al. 2005	2003-2004	Non-randomized
Swain et al. 2013 (NSABP B-38)	2004-2007	Phase 3 (C)	See link	See link

Note: CALGB 40101 originally specified 21-day cycles but was amended to 14-day cycles after results of CALGB 9741 were available.

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 60 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

Supportive medications

(varies depending on reference):
Burstein et al. 2005:
- Pegfilgrastim (Neulasta) 6 mg SC once on day 2, given 24 hours after chemotherapy
Burstein et al. 2005, for patients with Hb 10 to 12 g/dL:
- Darbepoetin alfa (Aranesp) 200 mcg SC once on day 1
  - See Burstein et al. 2005 for additional dose adjustments
CALGB 40101: one of the following:
- Filgrastim (Neupogen) 5 mcg/kg (rounded to 300 mcg or 480 mcg, whichever is closer) SC once per day on days 3 to 10; may be discontinued before day 10 if ANC has recovered to an "acceptable range, as determined by the treating physician"
- Sargramostim (Leukine) 250 to 500 mcg/m² SC once per day on days 3 to 10; may be discontinued before day 10 if ANC has recovered to an "acceptable range, as determined by the treating physician"
- Pegfilgrastim (Neulasta) 6 mg SC once, given 24 to 36 hours after chemotherapy

14-day cycle for 4 cycles

Subsequent treatment

Burstein et al. 2005: ddT (Taxol) x 4
NSABP B-38: ddT (Taxol) x 4 versus ddPG x 4

Regimen variant #2, 60/600 x 6

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Budd et al. 2014 (SWOG S0221)	2003-2010	Phase 3 (C)	AC; continuous	Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS
van Rossum et al. 2018 (MATADOR)	2004-2012	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	TAC	Did not meet secondary endpoints of RFS/OS

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 60 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

Supportive medications

Pegfilgrastim (Neulasta) 6 mg SC once on day 2

14-day cycle for 6 cycles

Subsequent treatment

SWOG S0221: Bi-weekly paclitaxel versus weekly paclitaxel

References

Burstein HJ, Parker LM, Keshaviah A, Doherty J, Partridge AH, Schapira L, Ryan PD, Younger J, Harris LN, Moy B, Come SE, Schumer ST, Bunnell CA, Haldoupis M, Gelman R, Winer EP. Efficacy of pegfilgrastim and darbepoetin alfa as hematopoietic support for dose-dense every-2-week adjuvant breast cancer chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Nov 20;23(33):8340-7. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
CALGB 40101: Shulman LN, Cirrincione CT, Berry DA, Becker HP, Perez EA, O'Regan R, Martino S, Atkins JN, Mayer E, Schneider CJ, Kimmick G, Norton L, Muss H, Winer EP, Hudis C. Six cycles of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide or paclitaxel are not superior to four cycles as adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer in women with zero to three positive axillary nodes: Cancer and Leukemia Group B 40101. J Clin Oncol. 2012 Nov 20;30(33):4071-6. Epub 2012 Jul 23. link to original article contains verified protocol link to study protocol PDF link to PMC article PubMed NCT00041119
1. Update: Shulman LN, Berry DA, Cirrincione CT, Becker HP, Perez EA, O'Regan R, Martino S, Shapiro CL, Schneider CJ, Kimmick G, Burstein HJ, Norton L, Muss H, Hudis CA, Winer EP. Comparison of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide versus single-agent paclitaxel as adjuvant therapy for breast cancer in women with 0 to 3 positive axillary nodes: CALGB 40101 (Alliance). J Clin Oncol. 2014 Aug 1;32(22):2311-7. link to original article link to PMC article PubMed
NSABP B-38: Swain SM, Tang G, Geyer CE Jr, Rastogi P, Atkins JN, Donnellan PP, Fehrenbacher L, Azar CA, Robidoux A, Polikoff JA, Brufsky AM, Biggs DD, Levine EA, Zapas JL, Provencher L, Northfelt DW, Paik S, Costantino JP, Mamounas EP, Wolmark N. Definitive results of a phase III adjuvant trial comparing three chemotherapy regimens in women with operable, node-positive breast cancer: the NSABP B-38 trial. J Clin Oncol. 2013 Sep 10;31(26):3197-204. Epub 2013 Aug 12. link to original article link to PMC article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00093795
SWOG S0221: Budd GT, Barlow WE, Moore HC, Hobday TJ, Stewart JA, Isaacs C, Salim M, Cho JK, Rinn KJ, Albain KS, Chew HK, Burton GV, Moore TD, Srkalovic G, McGregor BA, Flaherty LE, Livingston RB, Lew DL, Gralow JR, Hortobagyi GN. SWOG S0221: a phase III trial comparing chemotherapy schedules in high-risk early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015 Jan 1;33(1):58-64. Epub 2014 Nov 24. link to original article contains verified protocol link to PMC article PubMed NCT00070564
ECOG E5103: Miller KD, O'Neill A, Gradishar W, Hobday TJ, Goldstein LJ, Mayer IA, Bloom S, Brufsky AM, Tevaarwerk AJ, Sparano JA, Le-Lindqwister NA, Hendricks CB, Northfelt DW, Dang CT, Sledge GW Jr. Double-blind phase III trial of adjuvant chemotherapy with and without bevacizumab in patients with lymph node-positive and high-risk lymph node-negative breast cancer (E5103). J Clin Oncol. 2018 Sep 1;36(25):2621-2629. Epub 2018 Jul 24. link to original article refers to ECOG E1199 protocol PubMed NCT00433511
MATADOR: van Rossum AGJ, Kok M, van Werkhoven E, Opdam M, Mandjes IAM, van Leeuwen-Stok AE, van Tinteren H, Imholz ALT, Portielje JEA, Bos MMEM, van Bochove A, Wesseling J, Rutgers EJ, Linn SC, Oosterkamp HM; MATADOR Trialists' Group. Adjuvant dose-dense doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide versus docetaxel-doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide for high-risk breast cancer: first results of the randomised MATADOR trial (BOOG 2004-04). Eur J Cancer. 2018 Oct;102:40-48. link to original article contains protocol PubMed ISRCTN61893718

Cyclophosphamide & Epirubicin (EC)

back to top

EC: Epirubicin and Cyclophosphamide

Regimen variant #1, 60/500 x 8

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Piccart et al. 2001 (Belgian trial)	1988-1996	Phase 3 (E-de-esc)	1. CMF	Did not meet primary endpoint of EFS
Piccart et al. 2001 (Belgian trial)	1988-1996	Phase 3 (E-de-esc)	2. EC; high-dose	Seems to have inferior EFS

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Epirubicin (Ellence) 60 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 500 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 8 cycles

Regimen variant #2, 75/600 x 4

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Pico et al. 2004 (GEICAM 9401)	1995-2000	Phase 3 (E-de-esc)	ECT (Tamoxifen)	Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS60

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Epirubicin (Ellence) 75 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 4 cycles

Subsequent treatment

Tamoxifen

Regimen variant #3, 75/700 x 4

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Polyzos et al. 2009	1995-2004	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	See link	See link

Note: this is a component of a sequential treatment protocol; to our knowledge there are no references to support using it as a stand-alone treatment.

Preceding treatment

Surgery, then T (Taxotere) x 4

Chemotherapy

Epirubicin (Ellence) 75 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 700 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 4 cycles

Regimen variant #4, 90/600 x 4

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Zander et al. 2004	1993-2000	Non-randomized portion of RCT
Colleoni et al. 2006 (IBCSG 13-93)	1993-1999	Non-randomized portion of RCT
Kümmel et al. 2006	1996-2000	Phase 3 (C)	See link	See link
Earl et al. 2017 (tAnGo)	2001-2004	Non-randomized portion of RCT
Del Mastro et al. 2015 (GIM2)	2003-2006	Phase 3 (C)	See link	See link

Note: this is a component of a sequential treatment protocol; to our knowledge there are no references to support using it as a stand-alone treatment.

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Epirubicin (Ellence) 90 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 4 cycles

Subsequent treatment

Zander et al. 2004: CMF x 3 versus cyclophosphamide, mitoxantrone, thiotepa with auto HSCT
IBCSG 13-93: CMF x 3, then Tamoxifen x 5 y versus no further treatment
GIM2: Paclitaxel, q3wk dosing x 4
tAnGo: Paclitaxel, q3wk dosing x 4 versus TG x 4

Regimen variant #5, 100/830 x 8

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Piccart et al. 2001 (Belgian trial)	1988-1996	Phase 3 (E-esc)	1. CMF	Did not meet primary endpoint of EFS
Piccart et al. 2001 (Belgian trial)	1988-1996	Phase 3 (E-esc)	2. EC; moderate-dose	Seems to have superior EFS

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Epirubicin (Ellence) 100 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 830 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 8 cycles

Regimen variant #6, 120/600 x 4 (high-dose)

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Papaldo et al. 2003	1991-1994	Phase 3 (C)	EC & Lonidamine	Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS60
Vici et al. 2011 (GOIM 9902)	1999-2005	Phase 3 (C)	D-EC	Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS60

Preceding treatment

Papaldo et al. 2003: Surgery
GOIM 9902: Surgery versus Surgery, then D x 4

Chemotherapy

Epirubicin (Ellence) 120 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 4 cycles

References

Belgian trial: Piccart MJ, Di Leo A, Beauduin M, Vindevoghel A, Michel J, Focan C, Tagnon A, Ries F, Gobert P, Finet C, Closon-Dejardin MT, Dufrane JP, Kerger J, Liebens F, Beauvois S, Bartholomeus S, Dolci S, Lobelle JP, Paesmans M, Nogaret JM. Phase III trial comparing two dose levels of epirubicin combined with cyclophosphamide with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil in node-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2001 Jun 15;19(12):3103-10. link to original article PubMed
1. Update: de Azambuja E, Paesmans M, Beauduin M, Vindevoghel A, Cornez N, Finet C, Ries F, Closon-Dejardin MT, Kerger J, Gobert P, Focan C, Tagnon A, Dolci S, Nogaret JM, di Leo A, Piccart-Gebhart MJ. Long-term benefit of high-dose epirubicin in adjuvant chemotherapy for node-positive breast cancer: 15-year efficacy results of the Belgian multicentre study. J Clin Oncol. 2009 Feb 10;27(5):720-5. Epub 2008 Dec 22. link to original article PubMed
Papaldo P, Lopez M, Cortesi E, Cammilluzzi E, Antimi M, Terzoli E, Lepidini G, Vici P, Barone C, Ferretti G, Di Cosimo S, Nistico C, Carlini P, Conti F, Di Lauro L, Botti C, Vitucci C, Fabi A, Giannarelli D, Marolla P. Addition of either lonidamine or granulocyte colony-stimulating factor does not improve survival in early breast cancer patients treated with high-dose epirubicin and cyclophosphamide. J Clin Oncol. 2003 Sep 15;21(18):3462-8. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
GEICAM 9401: Pico C, Martin M, Jara C, Barnadas A, Pelegri A, Balil A, Camps C, Frau A, Rodriguez-Lescure A, Lopez-Vega JM, De La Haba J, Tres A, Alvarez I, Alba E, Arcusa A, Oltra A, Batista N, Checa T, Perez-Carrion R, Curto J; GEICAM. Epirubicin-cyclophosphamide adjuvant chemotherapy plus tamoxifen administered concurrently versus sequentially: randomized phase III trial in postmenopausal node-positive breast cancer patients: a GEICAM 9401 study. Ann Oncol. 2004 Jan;15(1):79-87. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
Zander AR, Kröger N, Schmoor C, Krüger W, Möbus V, Frickhofen N, Metzner B, Schultze W, Berdel WE, Koenigsmann M, Thiel E, Wandt H, Possinger K, Trümper L, Kreienberg R, Carstensen M, Schmidt EH, Jänicke F, Schumacher M, Jonat W. High-dose chemotherapy with autologous hematopoietic stem-cell support compared with standard-dose chemotherapy in breast cancer patients with 10 or more positive lymph nodes: first results of a randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 2004 Jun 15;22(12):2273-83. Epub 2004 Apr 26. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
IBCSG 13-93: Colleoni M, Gelber S, Goldhirsch A, Aebi S, Castiglione-Gertsch M, Price KN, Coates AS, Gelber RD; International Breast Cancer Study Group. Tamoxifen after adjuvant chemotherapy for premenopausal women with lymph node-positive breast cancer: International Breast Cancer Study Group Trial 13-93. J Clin Oncol. 2006 Mar 20;24(9):1332-41. Epub 2006 Feb 27. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
Kümmel S, Krocker J, Kohls A, Breitbach GP, Morack G, Budner M, Blohmer JU, Elling D. Randomised trial: survival benefit and safety of adjuvant dose-dense chemotherapy for node-positive breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2006 May 8;94(9):1237-44. link to original article link to PMC article contains protocol PubMed
1. Update: Reinisch M, Gluz O, Ataseven B, Blohmer JU, Budner M, Dittmer-Grabowski C, Kohls A, Krocker J, Kümmel A, Hagemann F, Rüland A, Traut A, Kümmel S. Updated Survival Analysis after a Median Follow-up of 12 Years of an Anthracycline-Containing Adjuvant Prospective Multicentre, Randomised Phase III Trial on Dose-Dense Chemotherapy in Primary Node-Positive, High-Risk Breast Cancer Patients. Breast Care (Basel). 2019 Jun;14(3):159-164. Epub 2018 Sep 5. link to original article link to PMC article PubMed
Polyzos A, Malamos N, Boukovinas I, Adamou A, Ziras N, Kalbakis K, Kakolyris S, Syrigos K, Papakotoulas P, Kouroussis C, Karvounis N, Vamvakas L, Christophyllakis C, Athanasiadis A, Varthalitis I, Georgoulias V, Mavroudis D; Hellenic Oncology Research Group. FEC versus sequential docetaxel followed by epirubicin/cyclophosphamide as adjuvant chemotherapy in women with axillary node-positive early breast cancer: a randomized study of the Hellenic Oncology Research Group (HORG). Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010 Jan;119(1):95-104. Epub 2009 Jul 28. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
GOIM 9902: Vici P, Brandi M, Giotta F, Foggi P, Schittulli F, Di Lauro L, Gebbia N, Massidda B, Filippelli G, Giannarelli D, Di Benedetto A, Mottolese M, Colucci G, Lopez M. A multicenter phase III prospective randomized trial of high-dose epirubicin in combination with cyclophosphamide (EC) versus docetaxel followed by EC in node-positive breast cancer: GOIM (Gruppo Oncologico Italia Meridionale) 9902 study. Ann Oncol. 2012 May;23(5):1121-9. Epub 2011 Sep 28. link to original article link to PMC article contains protocol PubMed
GIM2: Del Mastro L, De Placido S, Bruzzi P, De Laurentiis M, Boni C, Cavazzini G, Durando A, Turletti A, Nisticò C, Valle E, Garrone O, Puglisi F, Montemurro F, Barni S, Ardizzoni A, Gamucci T, Colantuoni G, Giuliano M, Gravina A, Papaldo P, Bighin C, Bisagni G, Forestieri V, Cognetti F; Gruppo Italiano Mammella. Fluorouracil and dose-dense chemotherapy in adjuvant treatment of patients with early-stage breast cancer: an open-label, 2 × 2 factorial, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2015 May 9;385(9980):1863-72. Epub 2015 Mar 2. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00433420
tAnGo: Earl HM, Hiller L, Howard HC, Dunn JA, Young J, Bowden SJ, McDermaid M, Waterhouse AK, Wilson G, Agrawal R, O'Reilly S, Bowman A, Ritchie DM, Goodman A, Hickish T, McAdam K, Cameron D, Dodwell D, Rea DW, Caldas C, Provenzano E, Abraham JE, Canney P, Crown JP, Kennedy MJ, Coleman R, Leonard RC, Carmichael JA, Wardley AM, Poole CJ; tAnGo trial collaborators. Addition of gemcitabine to paclitaxel, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide adjuvant chemotherapy for women with early-stage breast cancer (tAnGo): final 10-year follow-up of an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017 Jun;18(6):755-769. Epub 2017 May 4. link to original article contains protocol PubMed NCT00039546

Dose-dense Cyclophosphamide & Epirubicin (ddEC)

back to top

ddEC: dose-dense Epirubicin and Cyclophosphamide

Regimen variant #1, 90/600

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Nitz et al. 2005 (WSG AM-01)	1995-2002	Phase 3 (C)	EC, then ECT with auto HSCT x 2	Seems to have inferior OS
Del Mastro et al. 2015 (GIM2)	2003-2006	Phase 3 (E-esc)	See link	See link

Note: a mid-protocol amendment of GIM2 suggested giving the pegilgrastim at least 72 h after chemotherapy.

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Epirubicin (Ellence) 90 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

Supportive medications

WSG AM-01: Filgrastim (Neupogen) 5 mcg/kg SC once per day on days 5 to 12
GIM2: Pegfilgrastim (Neulasta) 6 mg SC once on day 2

14-day cycle for 4 cycles

Subsequent treatment

WSG AM-01: ddCMF x 3
GIM2: Dose-dense Paclitaxel

Regimen variant #2, 120/830

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Burnell et al. 2009 (NCIC-CTG MA.21)	2000-2005	Phase 3 (E-esc)	See link	See link

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Epirubicin (Ellence) 120 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 830 mg/m² IV once on day 1

Supportive medications

Filgrastim (Neupogen) 5 mcg/kg SC once per day on days 2 to 13
Epoetin alfa (Procrit) 40,000 units SC once per day on days 1 & 8

14-day cycle for 6 cycles

Subsequent treatment

T (Taxol) x 4

References

WSG AM-01: Nitz UA, Mohrmann S, Fischer J, Lindemann W, Berdel WE, Jackisch C, Werner C, Ziske C, Kirchner H, Metzner B, Souchon R, Ruffert U, Schütt G, Pollmanns A, Schmoll HJ, Middecke C, Baltzer J, Schrader I, Wiebringhaus H, Ko Y, Rösel S, Schwenzer T, Wernet P, Hinke A, Bender HG, Frick M; West German Study Group. Comparison of rapidly cycled tandem high-dose chemotherapy plus peripheral-blood stem-cell support versus dose-dense conventional chemotherapy for adjuvant treatment of high-risk breast cancer: results of a multicentre phase III trial. Lancet. 2005 Dec 3;366(9501):1935-44. Erratum in: Lancet. 2006 Mar 4;367(9512):730. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
NCIC-CTG MA.21: Burnell M, Levine MN, Chapman JA, Bramwell V, Gelmon K, Walley B, Vandenberg T, Chalchal H, Albain KS, Perez EA, Rugo H, Pritchard K, O'Brien P, Shepherd LE. Cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and fluorouracil versus dose-dense epirubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel versus doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel in node-positive or high-risk node-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010 Jan 1;28(1):77-82. Epub 2009 Nov 9. link to original article link to PMC article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00014222
GIM2: Del Mastro L, De Placido S, Bruzzi P, De Laurentiis M, Boni C, Cavazzini G, Durando A, Turletti A, Nisticò C, Valle E, Garrone O, Puglisi F, Montemurro F, Barni S, Ardizzoni A, Gamucci T, Colantuoni G, Giuliano M, Gravina A, Papaldo P, Bighin C, Bisagni G, Forestieri V, Cognetti F; Gruppo Italiano Mammella. Fluorouracil and dose-dense chemotherapy in adjuvant treatment of patients with early-stage breast cancer: an open-label, 2 × 2 factorial, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2015 May 9;385(9980):1863-72. Epub 2015 Mar 2. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00433420

Docetaxel monotherapy

back to top

D: Docetaxel
T: Taxotere (Docetaxel)
dT: doceTaxel

Regimen variant #1, 35 mg/m² weekly x 12

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Sparano et al. 2008 (ECOG E1199)	1999-2002	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	1. Paclitaxel, q3wk dosing	Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS
Sparano et al. 2008 (ECOG E1199)	1999-2002	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	2. Paclitaxel, weekly dosing 3. Docetaxel, q3wk dosing	Not reported

Note: this is a component of a sequential treatment protocol; to our knowledge there are no references to support using it as a stand-alone treatment.

Preceding treatment

AC x 4

Chemotherapy

Docetaxel (Taxotere) 35 mg/m² IV over 60 minutes once per day on days 1, 8, 15

21-day cycle for 4 cycles

Regimen variant #2, 75 mg/m² q3wk x 4

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Watanabe et al. 2017 (NSAS BC-02)	2001-2006	Phase 3 (C)	See link	See link
Mavroudis et al. 2017 (HORG CT/01.04)	2001-2013	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	See link	See link

Note: this is a component of a sequential treatment protocol; to our knowledge there are no references to support using it as a stand-alone treatment.

Preceding treatment

NSAS BC-02: AC x 4
HORG CT/01.04: E x 4

Chemotherapy

Docetaxel (Taxotere) 75 mg/m² IV over 60 minutes once on day 1

21-day cycle for 4 cycles

Regimen variant #3, 80 mg/m² q3wk x 3

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Joensuu et al. 2009 (FinXX)	2004-2007	Phase 3 (C)	See link	See link

Note: this is a component of a sequential treatment protocol; to our knowledge there are no references to support using it as a stand-alone treatment.

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Docetaxel (Taxotere) 80 mg/m² IV over 60 minutes once on day 1

21-day cycle for 3 cycles

Subsequent treatment

CEF x 3

Regimen variant #4, 100 mg/m² q3wk x 3

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Coombes et al. 2011 (DEVA)	1997-2005	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	See link	See link
Joensuu et al. 2006 (FinHer)	2000-2003	Phase 3 (C)	Vinorelbine	Superior RFS (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.40-0.85)
Campone et al. 2018 (UCBG 2-08)	2007-2010	Phase 3 (C)	Ixabepilone	Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS60

Note: this is a component of a sequential treatment protocol; to our knowledge there are no references to support using it as a stand-alone treatment. Patients in FinHer without HER2/neu amplification were only randomized to this or the vinorelbine arm.

Preceding treatment

UCBG 2-08: Surgery, then FEC x 3
DEVA: Surgery, then Epirubicin x 3

Chemotherapy

Docetaxel (Taxotere) 100 mg/m² IV over 60 minutes once on day 1

21-day cycle for 3 cycles

Regimen variant #5, 100 mg/m² q3wk x 4

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Bear et al. 2003 (NSABP B-27)	1995-2000	Phase 3 (E-esc)	See link	See link
Polyzos et al. 2009	1995-2004	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	See link	See link
Sparano et al. 2008 (ECOG E1199)	1999-2002	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	1. Paclitaxel, q3wk dosing	Seems to have superior DFS
Sparano et al. 2008 (ECOG E1199)	1999-2002	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	2. Paclitaxel, weekly dosing 3. Docetaxel, weekly dosing	Not reported
Ellis et al. 2009 (TACT)	2001-2003	Randomized Phase II (E-switch-ic)	See link	See link

Note: this is a component of a sequential treatment protocol; to our knowledge there are no references to support using it as a stand-alone treatment.

Preceding treatment

NSABP B-27: Neoadjuvant AC x 4, then surgery
ECOG E1199: Surgery, then AC x 4
Polyzos et al. 2009: Surgery
TACT: Surgery, then FEC x 4

Chemotherapy

Docetaxel (Taxotere) 100 mg/m² IV over 60 minutes once on day 1

21-day cycle for 4 cycles

Subsequent treatment

Polyzos et al. 2009: EC x 4

References

NSABP B-27: Bear HD, Anderson S, Brown A, Smith R, Mamounas EP, Fisher B, Margolese R, Theoret H, Soran A, Wickerham DL, Wolmark N; National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project. The effect on tumor response of adding sequential preoperative docetaxel to preoperative doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide: preliminary results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol B-27. J Clin Oncol. 2003 Nov 15;21(22):4165-74. Epub 2003 Oct 14. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00002707
1. Update: Bear HD, Anderson S, Smith RE, Geyer CE Jr, Mamounas EP, Fisher B, Brown AM, Robidoux A, Margolese R, Kahlenberg MS, Paik S, Soran A, Wickerham DL, Wolmark N. Sequential preoperative or postoperative docetaxel added to preoperative doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide for operable breast cancer: National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol B-27. J Clin Oncol. 2006 May 1;24(13):2019-27. Epub 2006 Apr 10. link to original article PubMed
2. Pooled update: Rastogi P, Anderson SJ, Bear HD, Geyer CE, Kahlenberg MS, Robidoux A, Margolese RG, Hoehn JL, Vogel VG, Dakhil SR, Tamkus D, King KM, Pajon ER, Wright MJ, Robert J, Paik S, Mamounas EP, Wolmark N. Preoperative chemotherapy: updates of National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocols B-18 and B-27. J Clin Oncol. 2008 Feb 10;26(5):778-85. Erratum in: J Clin Oncol. 2008 Jun 1;26(16):2793. link to original article PubMed
FinHer: Joensuu H, Kellokumpu-Lehtinen PL, Bono P, Alanko T, Kataja V, Asola R, Utriainen T, Kokko R, Hemminki A, Tarkkanen M, Turpeenniemi-Hujanen T, Jyrkkiö S, Flander M, Helle L, Ingalsuo S, Johansson K, Jääskeläinen AS, Pajunen M, Rauhala M, Kaleva-Kerola J, Salminen T, Leinonen M, Elomaa I, Isola J; FinHer Study Investigators. Adjuvant docetaxel or vinorelbine with or without trastuzumab for breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2006 Feb 23;354(8):809-20. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed ISRCTN76560285
1. Update: Joensuu H, Bono P, Kataja V, Alanko T, Kokko R, Asola R, Utriainen T, Turpeenniemi-Hujanen T, Jyrkkiö S, Möykkynen K, Helle L, Ingalsuo S, Pajunen M, Huusko M, Salminen T, Auvinen P, Leinonen H, Leinonen M, Isola J, Kellokumpu-Lehtinen PL. Fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide with either docetaxel or vinorelbine, with or without trastuzumab, as adjuvant treatments of breast cancer: final results of the FinHer trial. J Clin Oncol. 2009 Dec 1;27(34):5685-92. link to original article PubMed
ECOG E1199: Sparano JA, Wang M, Martino S, Jones V, Perez EA, Saphner T, Wolff AC, Sledge GW Jr, Wood WC, Davidson NE. Weekly paclitaxel in the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2008 Apr 17;358(16):1663-71. link to original article link to PMC article PubMed NCT00004125
1. Update: Sparano JA, Zhao F, Martino S, Ligibel JA, Perez EA, Saphner T, Wolff AC, Sledge GW Jr, Wood WC, Davidson NE. Long-term follow-up of the E1199 phase III trial evaluating the role of taxane and schedule in operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015 Jul 20;33(21):2353-60. Epub 2015 Jun 15. link to original article link to PMC article PubMed
TACT: Ellis P, Barrett-Lee P, Johnson L, Cameron D, Wardley A, O'Reilly S, Verrill M, Smith I, Yarnold J, Coleman R, Earl H, Canney P, Twelves C, Poole C, Bloomfield D, Hopwood P, Johnston S, Dowsett M, Bartlett JM, Ellis I, Peckitt C, Hall E, Bliss JM; TACT Trial Management Group; TACT Trialists. Sequential docetaxel as adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer (TACT): an open-label, phase III, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2009 May 16;373(9676):1681-92. link to original article link to PMC article contains verified protocol PubMed ISRCTN79718493
Polyzos A, Malamos N, Boukovinas I, Adamou A, Ziras N, Kalbakis K, Kakolyris S, Syrigos K, Papakotoulas P, Kouroussis C, Karvounis N, Vamvakas L, Christophyllakis C, Athanasiadis A, Varthalitis I, Georgoulias V, Mavroudis D; Hellenic Oncology Research Group. FEC versus sequential docetaxel followed by epirubicin/cyclophosphamide as adjuvant chemotherapy in women with axillary node-positive early breast cancer: a randomized study of the Hellenic Oncology Research Group (HORG). Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010 Jan;119(1):95-104. Epub 2009 Jul 28. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
FinXX: Joensuu H, Kellokumpu-Lehtinen PL, Huovinen R, Jukkola-Vuorinen A, Tanner M, Asola R, Kokko R, Ahlgren J, Auvinen P, Hemminki A, Paija O, Helle L, Nuortio L, Villman K, Nilsson G, Lahtela SL, Lehtiö K, Pajunen M, Poikonen P, Nyandoto P, Kataja V, Bono P, Leinonen M, Lindman H; FinXX Study Investigators. Adjuvant capecitabine in combination with docetaxel and cyclophosphamide plus epirubicin for breast cancer: an open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2009 Dec;10(12):1145-51. Epub 2009 Nov 10. link to original article PubMed NCT00114816
1. Update: Joensuu H, Kellokumpu-Lehtinen PL, Huovinen R, Jukkola-Vuorinen A, Tanner M, Kokko R, Ahlgren J, Auvinen P, Paija O, Helle L, Villman K, Nyandoto P, Nilsson G, Pajunen M, Asola R, Poikonen P, Leinonen M, Kataja V, Bono P, Lindman H. Adjuvant capecitabine, docetaxel, cyclophosphamide, and epirubicin for early breast cancer: final analysis of the randomized FinXX trial. J Clin Oncol. 2012 Jan 1;30(1):11-8. Epub 2011 Nov 21. link to original article PubMed
DEVA: Coombes RC, Bliss JM, Espie M, Erdkamp F, Wals J, Tres A, Marty M, Coleman RE, Tubiana-Mathieu N, den Boer MO, Wardley A, Kilburn LS, Cooper D, Thomas MW, Reise JA, Wilkinson K, Hupperets P. Randomized, phase III trial of sequential epirubicin and docetaxel versus epirubicin alone in postmenopausal patients with node-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Aug 20;29(24):3247-54. Epub 2011 Jul 18. link to original article contains protocol PubMed ISRCTN89772270
NSAS BC-02: Watanabe T, Kuranami M, Inoue K, Masuda N, Aogi K, Ohno S, Iwata H, Mukai H, Uemura Y, Ohashi Y. Comparison of an AC-taxane versus AC-free regimen and paclitaxel versus docetaxel in patients with lymph node-positive breast cancer: final results of the National Surgical Adjuvant Study of Breast Cancer 02 trial, a randomized comparative phase 3 study. Cancer. 2017 Mar 1;123(5):759-768. Epub 2017 Jan 12. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
HORG CT/01.04: Mavroudis D, Saloustros E, Boukovinas I, Papakotoulas P, Kakolyris S, Ziras N, Christophylakis C, Kentepozidis N, Fountzilas G, Rigas G, Varthalitis I, Kalbakis K, Agelaki S, Hatzidaki D, Georgoulias V; Hellenic Oncology Research Group. Sequential vs concurrent epirubicin and docetaxel as adjuvant chemotherapy for high-risk, node-negative, early breast cancer: an interim analysis of a randomised phase III study from the Hellenic Oncology Research Group. Br J Cancer. 2017 Jul 11;117(2):164-170. Epub 2017 Jun 22. link to original article contains verified protocol link to PMC article PubMed NCT00424606
UCBG 2-08: Campone M, Lacroix-Triki M, Roca L, Spielmann M, Wildiers H, Cottu P, Kerbrat P, Levy C, Desmoulins I, Bachelot T, Winston T, Eymard JC, Uwer L, Duhoux FP, Verhoeven D, Jaubert D, Coeffic D, Orfeuvre H, Canon JL, Asselain B, Martin AL, Lemonnier J, Roché H. UCBG 2-08: 5-year efficacy results from the UNICANCER-PACS08 randomised phase III trial of adjuvant treatment with FEC100 and then either docetaxel or ixabepilone in patients with early-stage, poor prognosis breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2018 Nov;103:184-194. Epub 2018 Sep 26. link to original article PubMed NCT00630032

Dose-dense Docetaxel monotherapy

back to top

ddT: dose-dense Taxotere (Docetaxel)
ddD: dose-dense Docetaxel

Regimen

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Saloustros et al. 2014 (HORG CT/04.22)	2004-2007	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	ddT (Taxol)	Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS36
Mavroudis et al. 2016 (HORG CT/07.17)	2007-2013	Phase 3 (C)	See link	See link

Note: this is a component of a sequential treatment protocol; to our knowledge there are no references to support using it as a stand-alone treatment.

Preceding treatment

ddFEC x 4

Chemotherapy

Docetaxel (Taxotere) 75 mg/m² IV once on day 1

Supportive medications

Filgrastim or Pegfilgrastim support (drug/dose/schedule not specified)

14-day cycle for 4 cycles

References

HORG CT/04.22: Saloustros E, Malamos N, Boukovinas I, Kakolyris S, Kouroussis C, Athanasiadis A, Ziras N, Kentepozidis N, Makrantonakis P, Polyzos A, Christophyllakis C, Georgoulias V, Mavroudis D. Dose-dense paclitaxel versus docetaxel following FEC as adjuvant chemotherapy in axillary node-positive early breast cancer: a multicenter randomized study of the Hellenic Oncology Research Group (HORG). Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014 Dec;148(3):591-7. Epub 2014 Nov 16. link to original article contains protocol PubMed NCT00431080
HORG CT/07.17: Mavroudis D, Matikas A, Malamos N, Papakotoulas P, Kakolyris S, Boukovinas I, Athanasiadis A, Kentepozidis N, Ziras N, Katsaounis P, Saloustros E, Georgoulias V; Hellenic Oncology Research Group. Dose-dense FEC followed by docetaxel versus docetaxel plus cyclophosphamide as adjuvant chemotherapy in women with HER2-negative, axillary lymph node-positive early breast cancer: a multicenter randomized study by the Hellenic Oncology Research Group (HORG). Ann Oncol. 2016 Oct;27(10):1873-8. Epub 2016 Aug 8. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT01985724

Doxorubicin monotherapy

back to top

A: Adriamycin (Doxorubicin)

Regimen

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Buzzoni et al. 1991 (Milan trial)	1982-1987	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	See link	See link
Leonard et al. 2004	1995-1999	Non-randomized portion of RCT
Gianni et al. 2009 (ECTO)	1996-2002	Phase 3 (C)	See link	See link

Note: this is a component of a sequential treatment protocol; to our knowledge there are no references to support using it as a stand-alone treatment.

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 75 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 4 cycles

Subsequent treatment

Milan trial & Leonard et al. 2004: CMF x 8
ECTO: CMF x 4

References

Milan trial: Buzzoni R, Bonadonna G, Valagussa P, Zambetti M. Adjuvant chemotherapy with doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil in the treatment of resectable breast cancer with more than three positive axillary nodes. J Clin Oncol. 1991 Dec;9(12):2134-40. link to original article PubMed
1. Update: Bonadonna G, Zambetti M, Valagussa P. Sequential or alternating doxorubicin and CMF regimens in breast cancer with more than three positive nodes: ten-year results. JAMA. 1995 Feb 15;273(7):542-7. link to original article PubMed
Leonard RC, Lind M, Twelves C, Coleman R, van Belle S, Wilson C, Ledermann J, Kennedy I, Barrett-Lee P, Perren T, Verrill M, Cameron D, Foster E, Yellowlees A, Crown J; Anglo-Celtic Cooperative Oncology Group. Conventional adjuvant chemotherapy versus single-cycle, autograft-supported, high-dose, late-intensification chemotherapy in high-risk breast cancer patients: a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004 Jul 21;96(14):1076-83. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
ECTO: Gianni L, Baselga J, Eiermann W, Porta VG, Semiglazov V, Lluch A, Zambetti M, Sabadell D, Raab G, Cussac AL, Bozhok A, Martinez-Agulló A, Greco M, Byakhov M, Lopez JJ, Mansutti M, Valagussa P, Bonadonna G. Phase III trial evaluating the addition of paclitaxel to doxorubicin followed by cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil, as adjuvant or primary systemic therapy: European Cooperative Trial in Operable Breast Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009 May 20;27(15):2474-81. Epub 2009 Mar 30. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00003013

Dose-dense Doxorubicin monotherapy

back to top

ddA: dose-dense Adriamycin (Doxorubicin)

Regimen

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Citron et al. 2003 (CALGB 9741)	1997-1999	Phase 3 (E-esc)	See link	See link
Kahan et al. 2005	2000-2003	Phase II

Note: this is a component of a sequential treatment protocol; to our knowledge there are no references to support using it as a stand-alone treatment.

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 60 mg/m² IV once on day 1

Supportive medications

Filgrastim (Neupogen)

14-day cycle for 4 cycles

Subsequent treatment

ddT

References

CALGB 9741: Citron ML, Berry DA, Cirrincione C, Hudis C, Winer EP, Gradishar WJ, Davidson NE, Martino S, Livingston R, Ingle JN, Perez EA, Carpenter J, Hurd D, Holland JF, Smith BL, Sartor CI, Leung EH, Abrams J, Schilsky RL, Muss HB, Norton L. Randomized trial of dose-dense versus conventionally scheduled and sequential versus concurrent combination chemotherapy as postoperative adjuvant treatment of node-positive primary breast cancer: first report of Intergroup Trial C9741/Cancer and Leukemia Group B Trial 9741. J Clin Oncol. 2003 Apr 15;21(8):1431-9. Epub 2003 Feb 13. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00003088
Kahan Z, Uhercsak G, Hajnal-Papp R, Boda K, Thurzo L. Dose-dense sequential adriamycin-paclitaxel-cyclophosphamide chemotherapy is well tolerated and safe in high-risk early breast cancer. Oncology. 2005;68(4-6):446-53. Epub 2005 Jul 13. link to original article PubMed
1. Update: Kelemen G, Uhercsák G, Ormándi K, Eller J, Thurzó L, Kahán Z. Long-term efficiency and toxicity of adjuvant dose-dense sequential adriamycin-Paclitaxel-cyclophosphamide chemotherapy in high-risk breast cancer. Oncology. 2010;78(3-4):271-3. Epub 2010 Jun 7. link to original article PubMed

Doxorubicin & Paclitaxel (AT)

back to top

AT: Adriamycin (Doxorubicin) & Taxol (Paclitaxel)

Regimen

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Gianni et al. 2009 (ECTO)	1996-2002	Phase 3 (E-esc)	See link	See link

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 60 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Paclitaxel (Taxol) 200 mg/m² IV over 3 hours once on day 1

21-day cycle for 4 cycles

Subsequent treatment

CMF x 4

References

ECTO: Gianni L, Baselga J, Eiermann W, Porta VG, Semiglazov V, Lluch A, Zambetti M, Sabadell D, Raab G, Cussac AL, Bozhok A, Martinez-Agulló A, Greco M, Byakhov M, Lopez JJ, Mansutti M, Valagussa P, Bonadonna G. Phase III trial evaluating the addition of paclitaxel to doxorubicin followed by cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil, as adjuvant or primary systemic therapy: European Cooperative Trial in Operable Breast Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009 May 20;27(15):2474-81. Epub 2009 Mar 30. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00003013

EC-CMF

back to top

EC-CMF: Epirubicin & Cyclophosphamide followed by Cyclophosphamide, Methotrexate, Fluorouracil

Protocol

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Basser et al. 2006 (IBCSG 15-95)	1995-2000	Phase 3 (C)	DI-EC	Seems to have inferior DFS¹

¹Reported efficacy is based on the 2009 update.

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy, EC portion

Epirubicin (Ellence) 90 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 4 cycles, followed by:

Chemotherapy, CMF portion

Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 100 mg/m² PO once per day on days 1 to 14
Methotrexate (MTX) 40 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8
Fluorouracil (5-FU) 600 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8

28-day cycle for 3 cycles

References

IBCSG 15-95: Basser RL, O'Neill A, Martinelli G, Green MD, Peccatori F, Cinieri S, Coates AS, Gelber RD, Aebi S, Castiglione-Gertsch M, Viale G, Price KN, Goldhirsch A; International Breast Cancer Study Group. Multicycle dose-intensive chemotherapy for women with high-risk primary breast cancer: results of International Breast Cancer Study Group Trial 15-95. J Clin Oncol. 2006 Jan 20;24(3):370-8. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00002784
1. Update: Colleoni M, Sun Z, Martinelli G, Basser RL, Coates AS, Gelber RD, Green MD, Peccatori F, Cinieri S, Aebi S, Viale G, Price KN, Goldhirsch A; International Breast Cancer Study Group. The effect of endocrine responsiveness on high-risk breast cancer treated with dose-intensive chemotherapy: results of International Breast Cancer Study Group Trial 15-95 after prolonged follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2009 Aug;20(8):1344-51. Epub 2009 May 25. link to original article link to PMC article PubMed

EC-D

back to top

EC-D: Epirubicin and Cyclophosphamide followed by Docetaxel
EC-T: Epirubicin and Cyclophosphamide followed by Taxotere (Docetaxel)

Protocol variant #1, 3+3 cycles

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Ejlertsen et al. 2017 (DBCG 07-READ)	2008-2012	Phase 3 (E-esc)	DC x 6	Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS

Biomarker eligibility criteria

TOP2A normal as determined by FISH

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy, part 1

Epirubicin (Ellence) 90 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 3 cycles

Chemotherapy, part 2

Docetaxel (Taxotere) 100 mg/m² IV over 60 minutes once on day 1

21-day cycle for 3 cycles

Protocol variant #2, 4+4 cycles

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Martín et al. 2015 (GEICAM 2003-10)	2004-2007	Phase 3 (C)	ET x 4, then X x 4	Seems to have superior IDFS

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy, part 1

Epirubicin (Ellence) 90 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 4 cycles

Chemotherapy, part 2

Docetaxel (Taxotere) 100 mg/m² IV over 60 minutes once on day 1

21-day cycle for 4 cycles

References

WSG-AGO EC-Doc: Nitz U, Gluz O, Huober J, Kreipe HH, Kates RE, Hartmann A, Erber R, Moustafa Z, Scholz M, Lisboa B, Mohrmann S, Möbus V, Augustin D, Hoffmann G, Weiss E, Böhmer S, Kreienberg R, Du Bois A, Sattler D, Thomssen C, Kiechle M, Jänicke F, Wallwiener D, Harbeck N, Kuhn W. Final analysis of the prospective WSG-AGO EC-Doc versus FEC phase III trial in intermediate-risk (pN1) early breast cancer: efficacy and predictive value of Ki67 expression. Ann Oncol. 2014 Aug;25(8):1551-7. Epub 2014 May 14. Erratum in: Ann Oncol. 2017 Nov 1;28(11):2899. link to original article contains protocol PubMed NCT02115204
GEICAM 2003-10: Martín M, Ruiz Simón A, Ruiz Borrego M, Ribelles N, Rodríguez-Lescure A, Muñoz-Mateu M, González S, Margelí Vila M, Barnadas A, Ramos M, Del Barco Berron S, Jara C, Calvo L, Martínez-Jáñez N, Mendiola Fernández C, Rodríguez CA, Martínez de Dueñas E, Andrés R, Plazaola A, de la Haba-Rodríguez J, López-Vega JM, Adrover E, Ballesteros AI, Santaballa A, Sánchez-Rovira P, Baena-Cañada JM, Casas M, del Carmen Cámara M, Carrasco EM, Lluch A. Epirubicin plus cyclophosphamide followed by docetaxel versus epirubicin plus docetaxel followed by capecitabine as adjuvant therapy for node-positive early breast cancer: results from the GEICAM/2003-10 study. J Clin Oncol. 2015 Nov 10;33(32):3788-95. Epub 2015 Sep 28. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00129935
DBCG 07-READ: Ejlertsen B, Tuxen MK, Jakobsen EH, Jensen MB, Knoop AS, Højris I, Ewertz M, Balslev E, Danø H, Vestlev PM, Kenholm J, Nielsen DL, Bechmann T, Andersson M, Cold S, Nielsen HM, Maae E, Carlsen D, Mouridsen HT. Adjuvant cyclophosphamide and docetaxel with or without epirubicin for early TOP2A-normal breast cancer: DBCG 07-READ, an open-label, phase III, randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 2017 Aug 10;35(23):2639-2646. Epub 2017 Jun 29. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00689156

Epirubicin & Paclitaxel (EP)

back to top

EP: Epirubicin & Paclitaxel

Regimen

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Fountzilas et al. 2007 (HE 10/00)	2000-2005	Phase 3 (C)	ddE, then ddP	Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS36

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Epirubicin (Ellence) 83 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Paclitaxel (Taxol) 187 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 4 cycles

Subsequent treatment

ddCMF x 3

References

HE 10/00: Fountzilas G, Dafni U, Gogas H, Linardou H, Kalofonos HP, Briasoulis E, Pectasides D, Samantas E, Bafaloukos D, Stathopoulos GP, Karina M, Papadimitriou C, Skarlos D, Pisanidis N, Papakostas P, Markopoulos C, Tzorakoeleftherakis E, Dimitrakakis K, Makrantonakis P, Xiros N, Polichronis A, Varthalitis I, Karanikiotis C, Dimopoulos AM; Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group. Postoperative dose-dense sequential chemotherapy with epirubicin, paclitaxel and CMF in patients with high-risk breast cancer: safety analysis of the Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group randomized phase III trial HE 10/00. Ann Oncol. 2008 May;19(5):853-60. Epub 2007 Nov 27. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
1. Update: Gogas H, Dafni U, Karina M, Papadimitriou C, Batistatou A, Bobos M, Kalofonos HP, Eleftheraki AG, Timotheadou E, Bafaloukos D, Christodoulou C, Markopoulos C, Briasoulis E, Papakostas P, Samantas E, Kosmidis P, Stathopoulos GP, Karanikiotis C, Pectasides D, Dimopoulos MA, Fountzilas G. Postoperative dose-dense sequential versus concomitant administration of epirubicin and paclitaxel in patients with node-positive breast cancer: 5-year results of the Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group HE 10/00 phase III Trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012 Apr;132(2):609-19. Epub 2011 Dec 21. link to original article PubMed

iddEnPC

back to top

iddEnPC: intense dose-dense Epirubicin, nab-Paclitaxel, Cyclophosphamide

Protocol

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Möbus et al. 2021 (GAIN-2)	2012-2017	Phase 3 (C)	dtEC-dtD	Did not meet primary endpoint of iDFS

Note: growth factor support is not specifically mentioned in the manuscript. The details below for pegfilgrastim are based on the GAIN trial of iddEPC.

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy, part 1

Epirubicin (Ellence) 150 mg/m² IV once on day 1

Supportive medications

Pegfilgrastim (Neulasta) 6 mg SC once on day 2 or 4

14-day cycle for 3 cycles, then:

Chemotherapy, part 2

Paclitaxel, nanoparticle albumin-bound (Abraxane) 330 mg/m² IV once on day 1

Supportive medications

Pegfilgrastim (Neulasta) 6 mg SC once on day 2 or 4

14-day cycle for 3 cycles, then:

Chemotherapy, part 3

Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 2000 mg/m² IV once on day 1

Supportive medications

Pegfilgrastim (Neulasta) 6 mg SC once on day 2 or 4

14-day cycle for 3 cycles

References

GAIN-2: Möbus V, Lück HJ, Ladda E, Klare P, Schmidt M, Schneeweiss A, Grischke EM, Wachsmann G, Forstbauer H, Untch M, Marmé F, Blohmer JU, Jackisch C, Huober J, Stickeler E, Reinisch M, Link T, Sinn BV, Janni W, Denkert C, Furlanetto J, Engels K, Solbach C, Schmatloch S, Rey J, Burchardi N, Loibl S; GBG and AGO-B. Phase III randomised trial comparing intense dose-dense chemotherapy to tailored dose-dense chemotherapy in high-risk early breast cancer (GAIN-2). Eur J Cancer. 2021 Oct;156:138-148. Epub 2021 Aug 24. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT01690702

iddEPC

back to top

iddEPC: intense dose-dense Epirubicin, Paclitaxel, Cyclophosphamide
IDD-ETC: Intense Dose-Dense Epirubicin, Taxol (Paclitaxel), Cyclophosphamide

Protocol

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Möbus et al. 2010 (AGO-iddEPC)	1998-2003	Phase 3 (E-esc)	EC, then Paclitaxel	Superior OS¹ OS120: 69% vs 59% (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.60-0.87)
Möbus et al. 2017 (GAIN)	2004-2008	Phase 3 (C)	ddEC, then PwX	Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS

¹Reported efficacy for AGO-iddEPC is based on the 2018 update. Note: this dosing of cyclophosphamide was after a mid-protocol amendment of GAIN.

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy, part 1

Epirubicin (Ellence) 150 mg/m² IV once on day 1

Supportive medications

Pegfilgrastim (Neulasta) 6 mg SC once on day 2 or 4

14-day cycle for 3 cycles, then:

Chemotherapy, part 2

Paclitaxel (Taxol) 225 mg/m² IV once on day 1

Supportive medications

Pegfilgrastim (Neulasta) 6 mg SC once on day 2 or 4

14-day cycle for 3 cycles, then:

Chemotherapy, part 3

Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 2000 mg/m² IV once on day 1

Supportive medications

Pegfilgrastim (Neulasta) 6 mg SC once on day 2 or 4

14-day cycle for 3 cycles

References

AGO-iddEPC: Moebus V, Jackisch C, Lueck HJ, du Bois A, Thomssen C, Kurbacher C, Kuhn W, Nitz U, Schneeweiss A, Huober J, Harbeck N, von Minckwitz G, Runnebaum IB, Hinke A, Kreienberg R, Konecny GE, Untch M. Intense dose-dense sequential chemotherapy with epirubicin, paclitaxel, and cyclophosphamide compared with conventionally scheduled chemotherapy in high-risk primary breast cancer: mature results of an AGO phase III study. J Clin Oncol. 2010 Jun 10;28(17):2874-80. Epub 2010 May 10. link to original article PubMed
1. Update: Möbus V, Jackisch C, Lück HJ, du Bois A, Thomssen C, Kuhn W, Nitz U, Schneeweiss A, Huober J, Harbeck N, von Minckwitz G, Runnebaum IB, Hinke A, Konecny GE, Untch M, Kurbacher C; AGO Breast Study Group (AGO-B). Ten-year results of intense dose-dense chemotherapy show superior survival compared with a conventional schedule in high-risk primary breast cancer: final results of AGO phase III iddEPC trial. Ann Oncol. 2018 Jan 1;29(1):178-185. link to original article PubMed
GAIN: Möbus V, von Minckwitz G, Jackisch C, Lück HJ, Schneeweiss A, Tesch H, Elling D, Harbeck N, Conrad B, Fehm T, Huober J, Müller V, Bauerfeind I, du Bois A, Loibl S, Nekljudova V, Untch M, Thomssen C; German Breast Group; AGO Breast Study Group (AGO-B); NOGGO. German Adjuvant Intergroup Node-positive Study (GAIN): a phase III trial comparing two dose-dense regimens (iddEPC versus ddEC-PwX) in high-risk early breast cancer patients. Ann Oncol. 2017 Aug 1;28(8):1803-1810. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00196872

Epirubicin monotherapy

back to top

E: Epirubicin

Regimen variant #1, 50 mg/m²

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Coombes et al. 2011 (DEVA)	1997-2005	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	See link	See link

Note: this is a component of a sequential treatment protocol; to our knowledge there are no references to support using it as a stand-alone treatment.

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Epirubicin (Ellence) 50 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8

28-day cycle for 3 cycles

Subsequent treatment

Docetaxel x 3

Regimen variant #2, 75 mg/m²

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Boccardo et al. 1990 (GROCTA-1)	1983-1987	Phase 3 (E-esc)	See link	See link

Note: this is a component of a sequential treatment protocol; to our knowledge there are no references to support using it as a stand-alone treatment.

Preceding treatment

Surgery, then CMF x 6

Chemotherapy

Epirubicin (Ellence) 75 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 4 cycles

Subsequent treatment

Tamoxifen x 5 y versus no further treatment

Regimen variant #3, 90 mg/m²

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Mavroudis et al. 2017 (HORG CT/01.04)	2001-2013	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	See link	See link

Note: this is a component of a sequential treatment protocol; to our knowledge there are no references to support using it as a stand-alone treatment.

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Epirubicin (Ellence) 90 mg/m² IV over 5 to 15 minutes once on day 1

21-day cycle for 4 cycles

Subsequent treatment

Docetaxel

Regimen variant #4, 100 mg/m²

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Poole et al. 2006 (NEAT)	1996-2001	Phase 3 (E-esc)	See link	See link
Poole et al. 2006 (BR9601)	1996-2001	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	See link	See link
Boccardo et al. 2010	1997-2004	Phase 3 (C)	T-EV	Did not meet primary endpoint of OS
Amadori et al. 2010 (IRST-IBIS-03)	1997-2004	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	See link	See link
Ellis et al. 2009 (TACT)	2001-2003	Randomized Phase II (C)	See link	See link
Cameron et al. 2017 (TACT2)	2005-2008	Phase 3 (C)	See link	See link

Note: this is a component of a sequential treatment protocol; to our knowledge there are no references to support using it as a stand-alone treatment.

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Epirubicin (Ellence) 100 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 4 cycles

Subsequent treatment

NEAT, TACT, BR9601, Boccardo et al. 2010: CMF
TACT2: Capecitabine versus CMF

References

GROCTA-1: Boccardo F, Rubagotti A, Bruzzi P, Cappellini M, Isola G, Nenci I, Piffanelli A, Scanni A, Sismondi P, Santi L, Genta F, Saccani F, Sassi M, Malacarne P, Donati D, Farris A, Castagnetta L, Di Carlo A, Traina A, Galletto L, Smerieri F, Buzzi F; Breast Cancer Adjuvant Chemo-Hormone Therapy Cooperative Group. Chemotherapy versus tamoxifen versus chemotherapy plus tamoxifen in node-positive, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer patients: results of a multicentric Italian study. J Clin Oncol. 1990 Aug;8(8):1310-20. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
1. Update: Boccardo F, Guglielmini P, Parodi A, Rubagotti A. Chemotherapy versus tamoxifen versus chemotherapy plus tamoxifen in node-positive, oestrogen receptor-positive breast cancer patients: very late results of the 'gruppo di ricerca per la chemio-ormonoterapia adiuvante (GROCTA)' 01-Trial in early breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011 Apr;126(3):653-61. Epub 2011 Feb 24. link to original article PubMed
NEAT/BR9601: Poole CJ, Earl HM, Hiller L, Dunn JA, Bathers S, Grieve RJ, Spooner DA, Agrawal RK, Fernando IN, Brunt AM, O'Reilly SM, Crawford SM, Rea DW, Simmonds P, Mansi JL, Stanley A, Harvey P, McAdam K, Foster L, Leonard RC, Twelves CJ; NEAT Investigators and the SCTBG. Epirubicin and cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil as adjuvant therapy for early breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2006 Nov 2;355(18):1851-62. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00003577; NCT00003012
1. Update: Earl HM, Hiller L, Dunn JA, Vallier AL, Bowden SJ, Jordan SD, Blows F, Munro A, Bathers S, Grieve R, Spooner DA, Agrawal R, Fernando I, Brunt AM, O'Reilly SM, Crawford SM, Rea DW, Simmonds P, Mansi JL, Stanley A, McAdam K, Foster L, Leonard RC, Twelves CJ, Cameron D, Bartlett JM, Pharoah P, Provenzano E, Caldas C, Poole CJ; NEAT Investigators and the SCTBG. Adjuvant epirubicin followed by cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and fluorouracil (CMF) vs CMF in early breast cancer: results with over 7 years median follow-up from the randomised phase III NEAT/BR9601 trials. Br J Cancer. 2012 Oct 9;107(8):1257-67. Epub 2012 Sep 11. link to original article link to PMC article PubMed
TACT: Ellis P, Barrett-Lee P, Johnson L, Cameron D, Wardley A, O'Reilly S, Verrill M, Smith I, Yarnold J, Coleman R, Earl H, Canney P, Twelves C, Poole C, Bloomfield D, Hopwood P, Johnston S, Dowsett M, Bartlett JM, Ellis I, Peckitt C, Hall E, Bliss JM; TACT Trial Management Group; TACT Trialists. Sequential docetaxel as adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer (TACT): an open-label, phase III, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2009 May 16;373(9676):1681-92. link to original article link to PMC article contains verified protocol PubMed ISRCTN79718493
Boccardo F, Amadori D, Guglielmini P, Sismondi P, Farris A, Agostara B, Gambi A, Catalano G, Faedi M, Rubagotti A. Epirubicin followed by cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil versus paclitaxel followed by epirubicin and vinorelbine in patients with high-risk operable breast cancer. Oncology. 2010;78(3-4):274-81. Epub 2010 Jun 8. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
IRST-IBIS-03: Amadori D, Silvestrini R, De Lena M, Boccardo F, Rocca A, Scarpi E, Schittulli F, Brandi M, Maltoni R, Serra P, Ponzone R, Biglia N, Gianni L, Tienghi A, Valerio MR, Bonginelli P, Amaducci L, Faedi M, Baldini E, Paradiso A. Randomized phase III trial of adjuvant epirubicin followed by cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and 5-fluorouracil (CMF) versus CMF followed by epirubicin in patients with node-negative or 1-3 node-positive rapidly proliferating breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011 Feb;125(3):775-84. Epub 2010 Dec 4. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT01031030
DEVA: Coombes RC, Bliss JM, Espie M, Erdkamp F, Wals J, Tres A, Marty M, Coleman RE, Tubiana-Mathieu N, den Boer MO, Wardley A, Kilburn LS, Cooper D, Thomas MW, Reise JA, Wilkinson K, Hupperets P. Randomized, phase III trial of sequential epirubicin and docetaxel versus epirubicin alone in postmenopausal patients with node-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Aug 20;29(24):3247-54. Epub 2011 Jul 18. link to original article contains protocol PubMed ISRCTN89772270
TACT2: Cameron D, Morden JP, Canney P, Velikova G, Coleman R, Bartlett J, Agrawal R, Banerji J, Bertelli G, Bloomfield D, Brunt AM, Earl H, Ellis P, Gaunt C, Gillman A, Hearfield N, Laing R, Murray N, Couper N, Stein RC, Verrill M, Wardley A, Barrett-Lee P, Bliss JM; TACT2 Investigators. Accelerated versus standard epirubicin followed by cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil or capecitabine as adjuvant therapy for breast cancer in the randomised UK TACT2 trial (CRUK/05/19): a multicentre, phase 3, open-label, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017 Jul;18(7):929-945. Epub 2017 Jun 7. link to original article link to PMC article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00301925
HORG CT/01.04: Mavroudis D, Saloustros E, Boukovinas I, Papakotoulas P, Kakolyris S, Ziras N, Christophylakis C, Kentepozidis N, Fountzilas G, Rigas G, Varthalitis I, Kalbakis K, Agelaki S, Hatzidaki D, Georgoulias V; Hellenic Oncology Research Group. Sequential vs concurrent epirubicin and docetaxel as adjuvant chemotherapy for high-risk, node-negative, early breast cancer: an interim analysis of a randomised phase III study from the Hellenic Oncology Research Group. Br J Cancer. 2017 Jul 11;117(2):164-170. Epub 2017 Jun 22. link to original article contains verified protocol link to PMC article PubMed NCT00424606

Dose-dense Epirubicin monotherapy

back to top

ddE: dose-dense Epirubicin

Regimen variant #1, 3 cycles

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence
Fountzilas et al. 2014 (HE10/05)	2005-2008	Non-randomized portion of phase III RCT

Note: this is a component of a sequential treatment protocol; to our knowledge there are no references to support using it as a stand-alone treatment.

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Epirubicin (Ellence) 110 mg/m² IV once on day 1

14-day cycle for 3 cycles

Subsequent treatment

Intensified CMF

Regimen variant #2, 4 cycles

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Fountzilas et al. 2005 (HE 10/97)	1997-2000	Phase 3 (C)	See link	See link

Note: this is a component of a sequential treatment protocol; to our knowledge there are no references to support using it as a stand-alone treatment.

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Epirubicin (Ellence) 110 mg/m² IV once on day 1

Supportive medications

Filgrastim (Neupogen) 5 mcg/kg SC once per day on days 3 to 10

14-day cycle for 4 cycles

Subsequent treatment

Intensified CMF

References

HE 10/97: Fountzilas G, Skarlos D, Dafni U, Gogas H, Briasoulis E, Pectasides D, Papadimitriou C, Markopoulos C, Polychronis A, Kalofonos HP, Siafaka V, Kosmidis P, Timotheadou E, Tsavdaridis D, Bafaloukos D, Papakostas P, Razis E, Makrantonakis P, Aravantinos G, Christodoulou C, Dimopoulos AM; Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group. Postoperative dose-dense sequential chemotherapy with epirubicin, followed by CMF with or without paclitaxel, in patients with high-risk operable breast cancer: a randomized phase III study conducted by the Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group. Ann Oncol. 2005 Nov;16(11):1762-71. Epub 2005 Sep 7. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
HE10/05: Fountzilas G, Dafni U, Papadimitriou C, Timotheadou E, Gogas H, Eleftheraki AG, Xanthakis I, Christodoulou C, Koutras A, Papandreou CN, Papakostas P, Miliaras S, Markopoulos C, Dimitrakakis C, Korantzopoulos P, Karanikiotis C, Bafaloukos D, Kosmidis P, Samantas E, Varthalitis I, Pavlidis N, Pectasides D, Dimopoulos MA. Dose-dense sequential adjuvant chemotherapy followed, as indicated, by trastuzumab for one year in patients with early breast cancer: first report at 5-year median follow-up of a Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group randomized phase III trial. BMC Cancer. 2014 Jul 15;14:515. link to original article link to PMC article contains verified protocol PubMed

E-CMF

back to top

E-CMF: Epirubicin followed by Cyclophosphamide, Methotrexate, Fluorouracil

Protocol variant #1, classic CMF

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Delaloge et al. 2020 (MINDACT)	2007-2011	Phase 3 (C)	TX (Taxotere)	Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy, E portion

Epirubicin (Ellence) 100 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 4 cycles

Chemotherapy, CMF portion

Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 100 mg/m² PO once per day on days 1 to 14
Methotrexate (MTX) 40 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8
Fluorouracil (5-FU) 600 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8

28-day cycle for 4 cycles

Protocol variant #2, IV dose modified CMF

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Delaloge et al. 2020 (MINDACT)	2007-2011	Phase 3 (C)	TX (Taxotere)	Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy, E portion

Epirubicin (Ellence) 100 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 4 cycles

Chemotherapy, CMF portion

Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 750 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Methotrexate (MTX) 50 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Fluorouracil (5-FU) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 4 cycles

References

MINDACT: Delaloge S, Piccart M, Rutgers E, Litière S, van 't Veer LJ, van den Berkmortel F, Brain E, Dudek-Peric A, Gil-Gil M, Gomez P, Hilbers FS, Khalil Z, Knox S, Kuemmel S, Kunz G, Lesur A, Pierga JY, Ravdin P, Rubio IT, Saghatchian M, Smilde TJ, Thompson AM, Viale G, Zoppoli G, Vuylsteke P, Tryfonidis K, Poncet C, Bogaerts J, Cardoso F; MINDACT investigators and the TRANSBIG Consortium. Standard Anthracycline Based Versus Docetaxel-Capecitabine in Early High Clinical and/or Genomic Risk Breast Cancer in the EORTC 10041/BIG 3-04 MINDACT Phase III Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Apr 10;38(11):1186-1197. Epub 2020 Feb 21. link to original article contains verified protocol in supplement PubMed NCT00433589

FAC

back to top

FAC: Fluorouracil, Adriamycin (Doxorubicin), Cyclophosphamide
CAF: Cyclophosphamide, Adriamycin (Doxorubicin), Fluorouracil

Regimen variant #1, 500/40/500 x 6

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence
Martín et al. 2013 (GEICAM 2003-02)	1993-1999	Non-randomized portion of RCT

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Fluorouracil (5-FU) 500 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 40 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 500 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 6 cycles

Subsequent treatment

Cyclophosphamide & Thiotepa, then auto HSCT, then tamoxifen versus tamoxifen

Regimen variant #2, 500/50/500 x 4

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Martín et al. 2013 (GEICAM 2003-02)	2003-2008	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	See link	See link

Note: this is a component of a sequential treatment protocol; to our knowledge there are no references to support using it as a stand-alone treatment.

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Fluorouracil (5-FU) 500 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 50 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 500 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 4 cycles

Subsequent treatment

wP x 8

Regimen variant #3, 500/50/500 x 6

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Martin et al. 2003 (GEICAM 8701)	1987-1991	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	CMF	Might have superior DFS
Martin et al. 2005 (BCIRG 001)	1997-1999	Phase 3 (C)	TAC	Inferior OS
Martín et al. 2010 (GEICAM 9805)	1999-2003	Phase 3 (C)	TAC	Inferior DFS
Martín et al. 2013 (GEICAM 2003-02)	2003-2008	Phase 3 (C)	FAC, then wP	Seems to have inferior DFS
Delaloge et al. 2020 (MINDACT)	2007-2011	Phase 3 (C)	TX (Taxotere)	Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Infusion times per Martin et al. 2005 (BCIRG 001).

Fluorouracil (5-FU) 500 mg/m² IV over 15 minutes once on day 1, given second
Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 50 mg/m² IV over 15 minutes once on day 1, given first
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 500 mg/m² IV over 1 to 5 minutes once on day 1, given third
- A HemOnc.org user reached out to us and said their institutional practice is to infuse cyclophosphamide over 20 to 30 minutes to decrease the likelihood of head and sinus pain.

Supportive medications

If patients had febrile neutropenia or infection: Ciprofloxacin (Cipro) 500 mg PO twice per day on days 5 to 14
If patients had febrile neutropenia, one of the following:
- Filgrastim (Neupogen) 5 mcg/kg SC once per day on days 4 to 11
- Lenograstim (Granocyte) 150 mcg/m² SC once per day on days 4 to 11

21-day cycle for 6 cycles

Regimen variant #4, 800/40/400 x 6

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Wood et al. 1994 (CALGB 8541)	1985-NR	Phase 3 (C)	1. FAC; 600/30/300 x 4	Superior OS
Wood et al. 1994 (CALGB 8541)	1985-NR	Phase 3 (C)	2. FAC; 1200/60/600 x 4	Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Fluorouracil (5-FU) 400 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8
Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 40 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 400 mg/m² IV once on day 1

28-day cycle for 6 cycles

Regimen variant #5, 800/40/400 until max doxorubicin

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Buzdar et al. 1984	1977-1980	Phase 3 (C)	FAC + BCG	Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Fluorouracil (5-FU) 400 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8
Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 40 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 400 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycles until cumulative doxorubicin dose of 300 mg/m² reached.

Subsequent treatment

After reaching cumulative maximum doxorubicin, patients would go on to receive maintenance CMF. This is now obsolete.

Regimen variant #6, 1000/50/500 x 8

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence
Hortobagyi et al. 2000	1990-1997	Non-randomized portion of RCT

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Fluorouracil (5-FU) 500 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 4
Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 16.7 mg/m²/day IV continuous infusion over 72 hours, started on day 1 (total dose per cycle: 50 mg/m²)
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 500 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 8 cycles

Subsequent treatment

CEP with auto HSCT versus no further treatment

Regimen variant #7, 1000/60/1400 x 6

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Davidson et al. 2005 (ECOG E5188)	1989-1994	Non-randomized portion of RCT
Hutchins et al. 2005 (INT-0102)	1989-1993	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	CMF	Seems to have superior OS
Albain et al. 2009 (SWOG-8814)	1989-1995	Phase 3 (E-esc)	See link	See link
Tallman et al. 2003 (INT-0121)	1991-1998	Non-randomized portion of RCT

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Fluorouracil (5-FU) 500 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8
Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 30 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 100 mg/m² PO once per day on days 1 to 14

28-day cycle for 6 cycles

Subsequent treatment

INT-0121: Cyclophosphamide & thiotepa, then auto HSCT versus no further chemotherapy
ECOG E5188: Goserelin x 5 y versus Goserelin & Tamoxifen x 5 y versus no further treatment
SWOG-8814: Tamoxifen x 5 y

Regimen variant #8, 1200/60/600 x 4

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Wood et al. 1994 (CALGB 8541)	1985-NR	Phase 3 (C)	1. FAC; 600/30/300 x 4	Superior OS
Wood et al. 1994 (CALGB 8541)	1985-NR	Phase 3 (C)	2. FAC; 800/40/400 x 6	Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Fluorouracil (5-FU) 600 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8
Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 60 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

28-day cycle for 4 cycles

Regimen variant #9, 1200/60/600 x 6

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Delaloge et al. 2020 (MINDACT)	2007-2011	Phase 3 (C)	TX (Taxotere)	Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Fluorouracil (5-FU) 600 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8
Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 60 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

28-day cycle for 6 cycles

References

Buzdar AU, Blumenschein GR, Smith TL, Powell KC, Hortobagyi GN, Yap HY, Schell FC, Barnes BC, Ames FC, Martin RG, Hersh EM. Adjuvant chemotherapy with fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide, with or without Bacillus Calmette-Guérin and with or without irradiation in operable breast cancer: a prospective randomized trial. Cancer. 1984 Feb 1;53(3):384-9. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
1. Update: Buzdar AU, Kau SW, Smith TL, Hortobagyi GN. Ten-year results of FAC adjuvant chemotherapy trial in breast cancer. Am J Clin Oncol. 1989 Apr;12(2):123-8. link to original article PubMed
CALGB 8541: Wood WC, Budman DR, Korzun AH, Cooper MR, Younger J, Hart RD, Moore A, Ellerton JA, Norton L, Ferree CR, Colangelo Ballow A, Frei E, Henderson IC. Dose and dose intensity of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II, node-positive breast carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 1994 May 5;330(18):1253-9. Erratum in: N Engl J Med 1994 Jul 14;331(2):139. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
1. Subgroup analysis: Muss HB, Thor AD, Berry DA, Kute T, Liu ET, Koerner F, Cirrincione CT, Budman DR, Wood WC, Barcos M, Henderson IC. c-erbB-2 expression and response to adjuvant therapy in women with node-positive early breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 1994 May 5;330(18):1260-6. Erratum in: N Engl J Med 1994 Jul 21;331(3):211. link to original article PubMed
Hortobagyi GN, Buzdar AU, Theriault RL, Valero V, Frye D, Booser DJ, Holmes FA, Giralt S, Khouri I, Andersson B, Gajewski JL, Rondon G, Smith TL, Singletary SE, Ames FC, Sneige N, Strom EA, McNeese MD, Deisseroth AB, Champlin RE. Randomized trial of high-dose chemotherapy and blood cell autografts for high-risk primary breast carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000 Feb 2;92(3):225-33. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
GEICAM 8701: Martin M, Villar A, Sole-Calvo A, Gonzalez R, Massuti B, Lizon J, Camps C, Carrato A, Casado A, Candel MT, Albanell J, Aranda J, Munarriz B, Campbell J, Diaz-Rubio E; GEICAM. Doxorubicin in combination with fluorouracil and cyclophosphamide (iv FAC regimen, day 1, 21) versus methotrexate in combination with fluorouracil and cyclophosphamide (iv CMF regimen, day 1, 21) as adjuvant chemotherapy for operable breast cancer: a study by the GEICAM group. Ann Oncol. 2003 Jun;14(6):833-42. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
Assikis V, Buzdar A, Yang Y, Smith T, Theriault R, Booser D, Valero V, Walters R, Singletary E, Ames F, Hortobagyi G. A phase III trial of sequential adjuvant chemotherapy for operable breast carcinoma: final analysis with 10-year follow-up. Cancer. 2003 Jun 1;97(11):2716-23. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
INT-0121: Tallman MS, Gray R, Robert NJ, LeMaistre CF, Osborne CK, Vaughan WP, Gradishar WJ, Pisansky TM, Fetting J, Paietta E, Lazarus HM. Conventional adjuvant chemotherapy with or without high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem-cell transplantation in high-risk breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003 Jul 3;349(1):17-26. link to original article PubMed
BCIRG 001: Martín M, Pienkowski T, Mackey J, Pawlicki M, Guastalla JP, Weaver C, Tomiak E, Al-Tweigeri T, Chap L, Juhos E, Guevin R, Howell A, Fornander T, Hainsworth J, Coleman R, Vinholes J, Modiano M, Pinter T, Tang SC, Colwell B, Prady C, Provencher L, Walde D, Rodriguez-Lescure A, Hugh J, Loret C, Rupin M, Blitz S, Jacobs P, Murawsky M, Riva A, Vogel C; Breast Cancer International Research Group. Adjuvant docetaxel for node-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005 Jun 2;352(22):2302-13. link to original article contains protocol PubMed NCT00688740
1. Update: Mackey JR, Martín M, Pienkowski T, Rolski J, Guastalla JP, Sami A, Glaspy J, Juhos E, Wardley A, Fornander T, Hainsworth J, Coleman R, Modiano MR, Vinholes J, Pinter T, Rodríguez-Lescure A, Colwell B, Whitlock P, Provencher L, Laing K, Walde D, Price C, Hugh JC, Childs BH, Bassi K, Lindsay MA, Wilson V, Rupin M, Houé V, Vogel C; TRIO/BCIRG 001 investigators. Adjuvant docetaxel, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide in node-positive breast cancer: 10-year follow-up of the phase 3 randomised BCIRG 001 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013 Jan;14(1):72-80. Epub 2012 Dec 12. link to original article PubMed
ECOG E5188: Davidson NE, O'Neill AM, Vukov AM, Osborne CK, Martino S, White DR, Abeloff MD. Chemoendocrine therapy for premenopausal women with axillary lymph node-positive, steroid hormone receptor-positive breast cancer: results from INT 0101 (E5188). J Clin Oncol. 2005 Sep 1;23(25):5973-82. Epub 2005 Aug 8. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
INT-0102: Hutchins LF, Green SJ, Ravdin PM, Lew D, Martino S, Abeloff M, Lyss AP, Allred C, Rivkin SE, Osborne CK. Randomized, controlled trial of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil versus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and fluorouracil with and without tamoxifen for high-risk, node-negative breast cancer: treatment results of intergroup protocol INT-0102. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Nov 20;23(33):8313-21. link to original article PubMed
JCOG 9208: Tokuda Y, Tajima T, Narabayashi M, Takeyama K, Watanabe T, Fukutomi T, Chou T, Sano M, Igarashi T, Sasaki Y, Ogura M, Miura S, Okamoto S, Ogita M, Kasai M, Kobayashi T, Fukuda H, Takashima S, Tobinai K; Autologous Bone Marrow Transplantation Study Group; Breast Cancer Study Group of the Japan Clinical Oncology Group (JCOG). Phase III study to evaluate the use of high-dose chemotherapy as consolidation of treatment for high-risk postoperative breast cancer: Japan Clinical Oncology Group study, JCOG 9208. Cancer Sci. 2008 Jan;99(1):145-51. Epub 2007 Oct 25. link to original article contains verified protocol [ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17970786 PubMed]
SWOG-8814: Albain KS, Barlow WE, Ravdin PM, Farrar WB, Burton GV, Ketchel SJ, Cobau CD, Levine EG, Ingle JN, Pritchard KI, Lichter AS, Schneider DJ, Abeloff MD, Henderson IC, Muss HB, Green SJ, Lew D, Livingston RB, Martino S, Osborne CK; Breast Cancer Intergroup of North America. Adjuvant chemotherapy and timing of tamoxifen in postmenopausal patients with endocrine-responsive, node-positive breast cancer: a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2009 Dec 19;374(9707):2055-2063. Epub 2009 Dec 10. link to original article link to PMC article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00929591
GEICAM 9805: Martín M, Seguí MA, Antón A, Ruiz A, Ramos M, Adrover E, Aranda I, Rodríguez-Lescure A, Grosse R, Calvo L, Barnadas A, Isla D, Martinez del Prado P, Ruiz Borrego M, Zaluski J, Arcusa A, Muñoz M, López Vega JM, Mel JR, Munarriz B, Llorca C, Jara C, Alba E, Florián J, Li J, López García-Asenjo JA, Sáez A, Rios MJ, Almenar S, Peiró G, Lluch A; GEICAM. Adjuvant docetaxel for high-risk, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010 Dec 2;363(23):2200-10. link to original article PubMed NCT00121992
GEICAM 2003-02: Martín M, Ruiz A, Ruiz Borrego M, Barnadas A, González S, Calvo L, Margelí Vila M, Antón A, Rodríguez-Lescure A, Seguí-Palmer MA, Muñoz-Mateu M, Dorca Ribugent J, López-Vega JM, Jara C, Espinosa E, Mendiola Fernández C, Andrés R, Ribelles N, Plazaola A, Sánchez-Rovira P, Salvador Bofill J, Crespo C, Carabantes FJ, Servitja S, Chacón JI, Rodríguez CA, Hernando B, Álvarez I, Carrasco E, Lluch A. Fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FAC) versus FAC followed by weekly paclitaxel as adjuvant therapy for high-risk, node-negative breast cancer: results from the GEICAM/2003-02 study. J Clin Oncol. 2013 Jul 10;31(20):2593-9. Epub 2013 Jun 3. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00129389
MINDACT: Delaloge S, Piccart M, Rutgers E, Litière S, van 't Veer LJ, van den Berkmortel F, Brain E, Dudek-Peric A, Gil-Gil M, Gomez P, Hilbers FS, Khalil Z, Knox S, Kuemmel S, Kunz G, Lesur A, Pierga JY, Ravdin P, Rubio IT, Saghatchian M, Smilde TJ, Thompson AM, Viale G, Zoppoli G, Vuylsteke P, Tryfonidis K, Poncet C, Bogaerts J, Cardoso F; MINDACT investigators and the TRANSBIG Consortium. Standard Anthracycline Based Versus Docetaxel-Capecitabine in Early High Clinical and/or Genomic Risk Breast Cancer in the EORTC 10041/BIG 3-04 MINDACT Phase III Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Apr 10;38(11):1186-1197. Epub 2020 Feb 21. link to original article contains verified protocol in supplement PubMed NCT00433589

FEC

back to top

FEC: Fluorouracil, Epirubicin, Cyclophosphamide
CEF: Cyclophosphamide, Epirubicin, Fluorouracil

Regimen variant #1, 500/50/500 x 6 ("FEC 50")

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Hurteloup 1988 (FESG)	1982-1984	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	FAC	Did not meet endpoint of OS50%
Fumoleau et al. 2003 (FASG 01)	1986-1990	Phase 3 (E-esc)	1. FEC; FEC 50 x 3	Might have superior OS
Fumoleau et al. 2003 (FASG 01)	1986-1990	Phase 3 (E-esc)	2. FEC; FEC 75 x 3	Did not meet primary endpoint of OS120
Héry et al. 2006 (FASG 03)	1988-1994	Phase 3 (E-esc)	Observation	Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS120
Arriagada et al. 2005	1989-1996	Phase 3 (E-esc)	Observation	Superior DFS
Bonneterre 2001 (FASG 05)	1990-1993	Phase 3 (C)	FEC; FEC 100 x 6	Inferior OS
Roché et al. 2006 (FASG 06)	1990-1998	Phase 3 (C)	Goserelin & Tamoxifen x 3y	Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS60

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Fluorouracil (5-FU) 500 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Epirubicin (Ellence) 50 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 500 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 6 cycles

Regimen variant #2, 500/60/500 x 4

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Rouëssé et al. 2006	1994-1999	Phase 3 (C)	FNC & RT	Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Fluorouracil (5-FU) 500 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Epirubicin (Ellence) 60 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 500 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 4 cycles

Regimen variant #3, 500/100/500 x 3 ("FEC 100")

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Campone et al. 2018 (UCBG 2-08)	2007-2010	Non-randomized portion of RCT

Note: this is a component of a sequential treatment protocol; to our knowledge there are no references to support using it as a stand-alone treatment.

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Fluorouracil (5-FU) 500 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Epirubicin (Ellence) 100 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 500 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 3 cycles

Subsequent treatment

UCBG 2-08: Docetaxel x 3 versus Ixabepilone x 3

Regimen variant #4, 500/100/500 x 4 ("FEC 100")

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Kerbrat et al. 2017 (UCBG-0106)	2002-2006	Phase 3 (E-de-esc)	FEC; FEC 100 x 6	Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS60
Kelly et al. 2012 (MDACC ID01-580)	2002-2008	Non-randomized portion of RCT

Note: this is an experimental arm that did not meet its primary endpoint; included here because it represents a de-escalation strategy.

Preceding treatment

MDACC ID01-580: Surgery, then weekly paclitaxel x 12 versus XT
UCBG-0106: Surgery

Chemotherapy

Fluorouracil (5-FU) 500 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Epirubicin (Ellence) 100 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 500 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 4 cycles

Regimen variant #5, 500/100/500 x 6 ("FEC 100")

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Bonneterre 2001 (FASG 05)	1990-1993	Phase 3 (E-RT-esc)	FEC; FEC 50 x 6	Superior OS
Kerbrat et al. 2007 (FASG 09)	1993-1998	Phase 3 (C)	VE	Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS
Roché et al. 2006 (FNCLCC PACS 01)	1997-2000	Phase 3 (C)	FEC-D	Inferior OS¹
Delbaldo et al. 2013 (Trial B2000)	2000-2002	Phase 3 (C)	FEC 100 x 4, then Taxol; q3wk x 4	Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS
Nitz et al. 2014 (WSG-AGO EC-Doc)	2000-2005	Phase 3 (C)	EC-D	Seems to have inferior OS
Spielmann et al. 2009 (FNCLCC PACS 04)	2001-2004	Phase 3 (C)	ED	Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS²
Kerbrat et al. 2017 (UCBG-0106)	2002-2006	Phase 3 (C)	FEC; FEC 100 x 4	Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS60
Sakr et al. 2013	2006-2010	Phase 3 (C)	FEC-D	Seems to have inferior OS
Delaloge et al. 2020 (MINDACT)	2007-2011	Phase 3 (C)	TX (Taxotere)	Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS

¹Reported efficacy for FNCLCC PACS 01 is based on the 2012 update.
²Reported efficacy for FNCLCC PACS 04 is based on the 2019 update.

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Fluorouracil (5-FU) 500 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Epirubicin (Ellence) 100 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 500 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 6 cycles

Regimen variant #6, 600/50/600 x 8

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Coombes et al. 1996	1984-1992	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	CMF	Did not meet primary endpoints of RFS/OS
Coombes et al. 2016 (HMFEC)	1992-2000	Phase 3 (C)	FEC; FEC 75	Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS

Note: this is an experimental arm that did not meet its primary endpoint; included here because other variants of this regimen have demonstrated comparative superiority.

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Fluorouracil (5-FU) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Epirubicin (Ellence) 50 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 8 cycles

Regimen variant #7, 600/60/600 x 3

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence
Joensuu et al. 2006 (FinHer)	2000-2003	Non-randomized portion of RCT

Note: this is a component of a sequential treatment protocol; to our knowledge there are no references to support using it as a stand-alone treatment.

Preceding treatment

Docetaxel x 3 versus Vinorelbine x 3

Chemotherapy

Fluorouracil (5-FU) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Epirubicin (Ellence) 60 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 3 cycles

Regimen variant #8, 600/60/600 x 4

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
van der Hage et al. 2001 (EORTC 10902)	1991-1999	Phase 3 (C)	FEC; neoadjuvant	Did not meet primary endpoint of OS
Ellis et al. 2009 (TACT)	2001-2003	Randomized Phase II (E-switch-ic)	See link	See link

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Fluorouracil (5-FU) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Epirubicin (Ellence) 60 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 4 cycles

Subsequent treatment

TACT: D x 4

Regimen variant #9, 600/60/600 x 6

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Venturini et al. 2005 (MIG-1)	1992-1997	Phase 3 (C)	Dose-dense FEC	Did not meet primary endpoint of OS
Sirohi et al. 2010 (TRAFIC)	1995-2002	Phase 3 (C)	ECisF	Did not meet primary endpoint of RFS
del Mastro et al. 2016 (GONO-MIG5)	1996-2001	Phase 3 (C)	EP x 4	Did not meet primary endpoint of OS

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Fluorouracil (5-FU) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Epirubicin (Ellence) 60 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 6 cycles

Regimen variant #10, 600/60/600 x 8

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Ellis et al. 2009 (TACT)	2001-2003	Randomized Phase II (C)	See link	See link

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Fluorouracil (5-FU) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Epirubicin (Ellence) 60 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 8 cycles

Regimen variant #11, 600/60/600 x 9

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Ejlertsen et al. 2007 (DBCG 89D)	1990-1998	Phase III (E-switch-ic)	CMF	Superior OS

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Fluorouracil (5-FU) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Epirubicin (Ellence) 60 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 9 cycles

Regimen variant #12, 600/75/600 x 3

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Joensuu et al. 2009 (FinXX)	2004-2007	Phase 3 (C)	See link	See link

Note: this is a component of a sequential treatment protocol; to our knowledge there are no references to support using it as a stand-alone treatment.

Preceding treatment

Surgery, then T (Taxotere) x 3

Chemotherapy

Fluorouracil (5-FU) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Epirubicin (Ellence) 75 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 3 cycles

Regimen variant #13, 600/90/600 x 4

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Martín et al. 2008 (GEICAM 9906)	1999-2002	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	See link	See link
Del Mastro et al. 2015 (GIM2)	2003-2006	Phase 3 (E-esc)	See link	See link

Note: this is a component of a sequential treatment protocol; to our knowledge there are no references to support using it as a stand-alone treatment.

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Fluorouracil (5-FU) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Epirubicin (Ellence) 90 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 4 cycles

Subsequent treatment

GEICAM 9906: Weekly Paclitaxel
GIM2: Paclitaxel, q3wk dosing

Regimen variant #14, 600/90/600 x 6

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Martín et al. 2008 (GEICAM 9906)	1999-2002	Phase 3 (C)	FEC x 4, then wP	Inferior DFS

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Fluorouracil (5-FU) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Epirubicin (Ellence) 90 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 6 cycles

Regimen variant #15, 700/75/700 x 6

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Polyzos et al. 2009	1995-2004	Phase 3 (C)	D, then EC	Seems to have inferior DFS

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Fluorouracil (5-FU) 700 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Epirubicin (Ellence) 75 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 700 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 6 cycles

Regimen variant #16, 1000/50/500 x 6

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Paradiso et al. 2001	1989-1994	Phase 3 (E-esc)	Observation	Seems to have superior DFS

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Fluorouracil (5-FU) 500 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8
Epirubicin (Ellence) 50 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 500 mg/m² IV once on day 1

Regimen variant #17, 1000/120/740 x 6 ("Canadian CEF (IV)")

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Delaloge et al. 2020 (MINDACT)	2007-2011	Phase 3 (C)	TX (Taxotere)	Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Fluorouracil (5-FU) 500 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8
Epirubicin (Ellence) 60 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 370 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8

28-day cycle for 6 cycles

Regimen variant #18, 1000/120/1050 x 6 ("FEC 120"; "Canadian CEF")

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Levine et al. 1998 (NCIC-CTG MA.5)	1989-1993	Phase 3 (E-RT-switch-ic)	CMF	Superior RFS
Coombes et al. 2005 (ICCG HDT trial)	1993-2001	Phase 3 (C)	FEC x 3, then HDT	Did not meet primary endpoints of RFS/EFS/OS
Burnell et al. 2009 (NCIC-CTG MA.21)	2000-2005	Phase 3 (C)	1. AC x 4, then T (Taxol); q3wk x 4	Superior RFS
Burnell et al. 2009 (NCIC-CTG MA.21)	2000-2005	Phase 3 (C)	2. ddEC x 6, then T (Taxol); q3wk x 4	Did not meet primary endpoint of RFS
Janni et al. 2016 (ADEBAR)	2001-2005	Phase 3 (C)	EC x 3, then Docetaxel	Did not meet primary endpoint of TTP
Delaloge et al. 2020 (MINDACT)	2007-2011	Phase 3 (C)	TX (Taxotere)	Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Fluorouracil (5-FU) 500 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8
Epirubicin (Ellence) 60 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 75 mg/m² PO once per day on days 1 to 14

28-day cycle for 6 cycles

Regimen variant #19, 1200/50/1200 x 6

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Coombes et al. 1996	1984-1992	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	CMF	Did not meet primary endpoints of RFS/OS

Note: this is an experimental arm that did not meet its primary endpoint; however, based on a subgroup analysis, it became a preferred regimen.

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Fluorouracil (5-FU) 600 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8
Epirubicin (Ellence) 50 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 600 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8

28-day cycle for 6 cycles

References

FESG: Hurteloup P; French Epirubicin Study Group. A prospective randomized phase III trial comparing combination chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide, fluorouracil, and either doxorubicin or epirubicin. J Clin Oncol. 1988 Apr;6(4):679-88. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
Coombes RC, Bliss JM, Wils J, Morvan F, Espié M, Amadori D, Gambrosier P, Richards M, Aapro M, Villar-Grimalt A, McArdle C, Pérez-López FR, Vassilopoulos P, Ferreira EP, Chilvers CE, Coombes G, Woods EM, Marty M; International Collaborative Cancer Group. Adjuvant cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil versus fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide chemotherapy in premenopausal women with axillary node-positive operable breast cancer: results of a randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 1996 Jan;14(1):35-45. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
NCIC-CTG MA.5: Levine MN, Bramwell VH, Pritchard KI, Norris BD, Shepherd LE, Abu-Zahra H, Findlay B, Warr D, Bowman D, Myles J, Arnold A, Vandenberg T, MacKenzie R, Robert J, Ottaway J, Burnell M, Williams CK, Tu D; National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. Randomized trial of intensive cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and fluorouracil chemotherapy compared with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil in premenopausal women with node-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1998 Aug;16(8):2651-8. link to original article PubMed
1. Update: Levine MN, Pritchard KI, Bramwell VH, Shepherd LE, Tu D, Paul N; National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. Randomized trial comparing cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and fluorouracil with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil in premenopausal women with node-positive breast cancer: update of National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group Trial MA5. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Aug 1;23(22):5166-70. link to original article PubMed
2. Subgroup analysis: Pritchard KI, Shepherd LE, O'Malley FP, Andrulis IL, Tu D, Bramwell VH, Levine MN; National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. HER2 and responsiveness of breast cancer to adjuvant chemotherapy. N Engl J Med. 2006 May 18;354(20):2103-11. link to original article PubMed
FASG 05: Bonneterre J; French Adjuvant Study Group. Benefit of a high-dose epirubicin regimen in adjuvant chemotherapy for node-positive breast cancer patients with poor prognostic factors: 5-year follow-up results of French Adjuvant Study Group 05 randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 2001 Feb 1;19(3):602-11. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
1. Update: Bonneterre J, Roché H, Kerbrat P, Brémond A, Fumoleau P, Namer M, Goudier MJ, Schraub S, Fargeot P, Chapelle-Marcillac I. Epirubicin increases long-term survival in adjuvant chemotherapy of patients with poor-prognosis, node-positive, early breast cancer: 10-year follow-up results of the French Adjuvant Study Group 05 randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Apr 20;23(12):2686-93. link to original article PubMed
Paradiso A, Schittulli F, Cellamare G, Mangia A, Marzullo F, Lorusso V, De Lena M. Randomized clinical trial of adjuvant fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide chemotherapy for patients with fast-proliferating, node-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2001 Oct 1;19(19):3929-37. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
EORTC 10902: van der Hage JA, van de Velde CJ, Julien JP, Tubiana-Hulin M, Vandervelden C, Duchateau L. Preoperative chemotherapy in primary operable breast cancer: results from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer trial 10902. J Clin Oncol. 2001 Nov 15;19(22):4224-37. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
1. Update: van Nes JG, Putter H, Julien JP, Tubiana-Hulin M, van de Vijver M, Bogaerts J, de Vos M, van de Velde CJ; Cooperating Investigators of the EORTC. Preoperative chemotherapy is safe in early breast cancer, even after 10 years of follow-up; clinical and translational results from the EORTC trial 10902. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009 May;115(1):101-13. Epub 2008 May 18. link to original article PubMed
FASG 01: Fumoleau P, Kerbrat P, Romestaing P, Fargeot P, Brémond A, Namer M, Schraub S, Goudier MJ, Mihura J, Monnier A, Clavère P, Serin D, Seffert P, Pourny C, Facchini T, Jacquin JP, Sztermer JF, Datchary J, Ramos R, Luporsi E. Randomized trial comparing six versus three cycles of epirubicin-based adjuvant chemotherapy in premenopausal, node-positive breast cancer patients: 10-year follow-up results of the French Adjuvant Study Group 01 trial. J Clin Oncol. 2003 Jan 15;21(2):298-305. link to original article PubMed
Arriagada R, Spielmann M, Koscielny S, Le Chevalier T, Delozier T, Rémé-Saumon M, Ducourtieux M, Tursz T, Hill C. Results of two randomized trials evaluating adjuvant anthracycline-based chemotherapy in 1146 patients with early breast cancer. Acta Oncol. 2005;44(5):458-66. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
ICCG HDT trial: Coombes RC, Howell A, Emson M, Peckitt C, Gallagher C, Bengala C, Tres A, Welch R, Lawton P, Rubens R, Woods E, Haviland J, Vigushin D, Kanfer E, Bliss JM. High dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation as adjuvant therapy for primary breast cancer patients with four or more lymph nodes involved: long-term results of an international randomised trial. Ann Oncol. 2005 May;16(5):726-34. Epub 2005 Apr 7. link to original article PubMed
MIG-1: Venturini M, Del Mastro L, Aitini E, Baldini E, Caroti C, Contu A, Testore F, Brema F, Pronzato P, Cavazzini G, Sertoli MR, Canavese G, Rosso R, Bruzzi P; Mammella InterGruppo. Dose-dense adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer patients: results from a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005 Dec 7;97(23):1724-33. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
1. Update: Blondeaux E, Lambertini M, Michelotti A, Conte B, Benasso M, Dellepiane C, Bighin C, Pastorino S, Levaggi A, Alonzo A, Poggio F, Buzzatti G, Molinelli C, Fregatti P, Bertoglio S, Boccardo F, Del Mastro L. Dose-dense adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer patients: 15-year results of the Phase 3 Mammella InterGruppo (MIG)-1 study. Br J Cancer. 2020 Mar 31. Epub ahead of print. link to original article PubMed
FinHer: Joensuu H, Kellokumpu-Lehtinen PL, Bono P, Alanko T, Kataja V, Asola R, Utriainen T, Kokko R, Hemminki A, Tarkkanen M, Turpeenniemi-Hujanen T, Jyrkkiö S, Flander M, Helle L, Ingalsuo S, Johansson K, Jääskeläinen AS, Pajunen M, Rauhala M, Kaleva-Kerola J, Salminen T, Leinonen M, Elomaa I, Isola J; FinHer Study Investigators. Adjuvant docetaxel or vinorelbine with or without trastuzumab for breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2006 Feb 23;354(8):809-20. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed ISRCTN76560285
1. Update: Joensuu H, Bono P, Kataja V, Alanko T, Kokko R, Asola R, Utriainen T, Turpeenniemi-Hujanen T, Jyrkkiö S, Möykkynen K, Helle L, Ingalsuo S, Pajunen M, Huusko M, Salminen T, Auvinen P, Leinonen H, Leinonen M, Isola J, Kellokumpu-Lehtinen PL. Fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide with either docetaxel or vinorelbine, with or without trastuzumab, as adjuvant treatments of breast cancer: final results of the FinHer trial. J Clin Oncol. 2009 Dec 1;27(34):5685-92. link to original article PubMed
FASG 06: Roché H, Kerbrat P, Bonneterre J, Fargeot P, Fumoleau P, Monnier A, Clavère P, Goudier MJ, Chollet P, Guastalla JP, Serin D. Complete hormonal blockade versus epirubicin-based chemotherapy in premenopausal, one to three node-positive, and hormone-receptor positive, early breast cancer patients: 7-year follow-up results of French Adjuvant Study Group 06 randomised trial. Ann Oncol. 2006 Aug;17(8):1221-7. Epub 2006 May 26. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
FASG 03: Héry M, Bonneterre J, Roché H, Luporsi E, Kerbrat P, Namer M, Fumoleau P, Monnier A, Fargeot P. Epirubicin-based chemotherapy as adjuvant treatment for poor prognosis, node-negative breast cancer: 10-year follow-up results of the French Adjuvant Study Group 03 trial. Bull Cancer. 2006 Oct;93(10):E109-14. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
Rouëssé J, de la Lande B, Bertheault-Cvitkovic F, Serin D, Graïc Y, Combe M, Leduc B, Lucas V, Demange L, Nguyen TD, Castèra D, Krzisch C, Villet R, Mouret-Fourme E, Garbay JR, Noguès C; Centre René Huguenin Breast Cancer Group. A phase III randomized trial comparing adjuvant concomitant chemoradiotherapy versus standard adjuvant chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy in operable node-positive breast cancer: final results. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006 Mar 15;64(4):1072-80. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
FNCLCC PACS 01: Roché H, Fumoleau P, Spielmann M, Canon JL, Delozier T, Serin D, Symann M, Kerbrat P, Soulié P, Eichler F, Viens P, Monnier A, Vindevoghel A, Campone M, Goudier MJ, Bonneterre J, Ferrero JM, Martin AL, Genève J, Asselain B. Sequential adjuvant epirubicin-based and docetaxel chemotherapy for node-positive breast cancer patients: the FNCLCC PACS 01 Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2006 Dec 20;24(36):5664-71. Epub 2006 Nov 20. link to original article PubMed
1. Update: Coudert B, Asselain B, Campone M, Spielmann M, Machiels JP, Pénault-Llorca F, Serin D, Lévy C, Romieu G, Canon JL, Orfeuvre H, Piot G, Petit T, Jerusalem G, Audhuy B, Veyret C, Beauduin M, Eymard JC, Martin AL, Roché H; UNICANCER Breast Group. Extended benefit from sequential administration of docetaxel after standard fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide regimen for node-positive breast cancer: the 8-year follow-up results of the UNICANCER-PACS01 trial. Oncologist. 2012;17(7):900-9. Epub 2012 May 18. link to original article link to PMC article PubMed
DBCG 89D: Ejlertsen B, Mouridsen HT, Jensen MB, Andersen J, Cold S, Edlund P, Ewertz M, Jensen BB, Kamby C, Nordenskjold B, Bergh J. Improved outcome from substituting methotrexate with epirubicin: results from a randomised comparison of CMF versus CEF in patients with primary breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2007 Mar;43(5):877-84. Epub 2007 Feb 16. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
FASG 09: Kerbrat P, Roché H, Bonneterre J, Veyret C, Lortholary A, Monnier A, Fumoleau P, Fargeot P, Namer M, Chollet P, Goudier MJ, Audhuy B, Simon H, Montcuquet P, Eymard JC, Walter S, Clavère P, Guastalla JP; French Adjuvant Study Group. Epirubicin-vinorelbine vs FEC100 for node-positive, early breast cancer: French Adjuvant Study Group 09 trial. Br J Cancer. 2007 Jun 4;96(11):1633-8. Epub 2007 May 15. link to original article link to PMC article PubMed
GEICAM 9906: Martín M, Rodríguez-Lescure A, Ruiz A, Alba E, Calvo L, Ruiz-Borrego M, Munárriz B, Rodríguez CA, Crespo C, de Alava E, López García-Asenjo JA, Guitián MD, Almenar S, González-Palacios JF, Vera F, Palacios J, Ramos M, Gracia Marco JM, Lluch A, Alvarez I, Seguí MA, Mayordomo JI, Antón A, Baena JM, Plazaola A, Modolell A, Pelegrí A, Mel JR, Aranda E, Adrover E, Alvarez JV, García Puche JL, Sánchez-Rovira P, Gonzalez S, López-Vega JM; GEICAM. Randomized phase 3 trial of fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide alone or followed by paclitaxel for early breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008 Jun 4;100(11):805-14. Epub 2008 May 27. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00129922
TACT: Ellis P, Barrett-Lee P, Johnson L, Cameron D, Wardley A, O'Reilly S, Verrill M, Smith I, Yarnold J, Coleman R, Earl H, Canney P, Twelves C, Poole C, Bloomfield D, Hopwood P, Johnston S, Dowsett M, Bartlett JM, Ellis I, Peckitt C, Hall E, Bliss JM; TACT Trial Management Group; TACT Trialists. Sequential docetaxel as adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer (TACT): an open-label, phase III, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2009 May 16;373(9676):1681-92. link to original article link to PMC article contains verified protocol PubMed ISRCTN79718493
Polyzos A, Malamos N, Boukovinas I, Adamou A, Ziras N, Kalbakis K, Kakolyris S, Syrigos K, Papakotoulas P, Kouroussis C, Karvounis N, Vamvakas L, Christophyllakis C, Athanasiadis A, Varthalitis I, Georgoulias V, Mavroudis D; Hellenic Oncology Research Group. FEC versus sequential docetaxel followed by epirubicin/cyclophosphamide as adjuvant chemotherapy in women with axillary node-positive early breast cancer: a randomized study of the Hellenic Oncology Research Group (HORG). Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010 Jan;119(1):95-104. Epub 2009 Jul 28. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
NCIC-CTG MA.21: Burnell M, Levine MN, Chapman JA, Bramwell V, Gelmon K, Walley B, Vandenberg T, Chalchal H, Albain KS, Perez EA, Rugo H, Pritchard K, O'Brien P, Shepherd LE. Cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and fluorouracil versus dose-dense epirubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel versus doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel in node-positive or high-risk node-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010 Jan 1;28(1):77-82. Epub 2009 Nov 9. link to original article link to PMC article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00014222
FinXX: Joensuu H, Kellokumpu-Lehtinen PL, Huovinen R, Jukkola-Vuorinen A, Tanner M, Asola R, Kokko R, Ahlgren J, Auvinen P, Hemminki A, Paija O, Helle L, Nuortio L, Villman K, Nilsson G, Lahtela SL, Lehtiö K, Pajunen M, Poikonen P, Nyandoto P, Kataja V, Bono P, Leinonen M, Lindman H; FinXX Study Investigators. Adjuvant capecitabine in combination with docetaxel and cyclophosphamide plus epirubicin for breast cancer: an open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2009 Dec;10(12):1145-51. Epub 2009 Nov 10. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00114816
1. Update: Joensuu H, Kellokumpu-Lehtinen PL, Huovinen R, Jukkola-Vuorinen A, Tanner M, Kokko R, Ahlgren J, Auvinen P, Paija O, Helle L, Villman K, Nyandoto P, Nilsson G, Pajunen M, Asola R, Poikonen P, Leinonen M, Kataja V, Bono P, Lindman H. Adjuvant capecitabine, docetaxel, cyclophosphamide, and epirubicin for early breast cancer: final analysis of the randomized FinXX trial. J Clin Oncol. 2012 Jan 1;30(1):11-8. Epub 2011 Nov 21. link to original article PubMed
FNCLCC PACS 04: Spielmann M, Roché H, Delozier T, Canon JL, Romieu G, Bourgeois H, Extra JM, Serin D, Kerbrat P, Machiels JP, Lortholary A, Orfeuvre H, Campone M, Hardy-Bessard AC, Coudert B, Maerevoet M, Piot G, Kramar A, Martin AL, Penault-Llorca F. Trastuzumab for patients with axillary-node-positive breast cancer: results of the FNCLCC-PACS 04 trial. J Clin Oncol. 2009 Dec 20;27(36):6129-34. Epub 2009 Nov 16. link to original article PubMed NCT00054587
1. Update: D'Hondt V, Canon JL, Roca L, Levy C, Pierga JY, Le Du F, Campone M, Desmoulins I, Goncalves A, Debled M, Rios M, Ferrero JM, Serin D, Hardy-Bessard AC, Piot G, Brain E, Dohollou N, Orfeuvre H, Lemonnier J, Roché H, Delaloge S, Dalenc F. UCBG 2-04: Long-term results of the PACS 04 trial evaluating adjuvant epirubicin plus docetaxel in node-positive breast cancer and trastuzumab in the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive subgroup. Eur J Cancer. 2019 Nov;122:91-100. Epub 2019 Oct 18. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
TRAFIC: Sirohi B, A'Hern R, Coombes G, Bliss JM, Hickish T, Perren T, Crawford M, O'Brien M, Iveson T, Ebbs S, Skene A, Laing R, Smith IE. A randomised comparative trial of infusional ECisF versus conventional FEC as adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer: the TRAFIC trial. Ann Oncol. 2010 Aug;21(8):1623-9. Epub 2010 Jan 21. link to original article contains protocol PubMed ISRCTN83324925
MDACC ID01-580: Kelly CM, Green MC, Broglio K, Thomas ES, Brewster AM, Valero V, Ibrahim NK, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Booser DJ, Walters RS, Hunt KK, Hortobagyi GN, Buzdar AU. Phase III trial evaluating weekly paclitaxel versus docetaxel in combination with capecitabine in operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2012 Mar 20;30(9):930-5. Epub 2012 Feb 13. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00050167
Sakr H, Hamed RH, Anter AH, Yossef T. Sequential docetaxel as adjuvant chemotherapy for node-positive or/and T3 or T4 breast cancer: clinical outcome (Mansoura University). Med Oncol. 2013 Mar;30(1):457. Epub 2013 Jan 16. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
AERO-B2000: Delbaldo C, Serin D, Mousseau M, Greget S, Audhuy B, Priou F, Berdah JF, Teissier E, Laplaige P, Zelek L, Quinaux E, Buyse M, Piedbois P; Association Européenne de Recherche en Oncologie (AERO). A phase III adjuvant randomised trial of 6 cycles of 5-fluorouracil-epirubicine-cyclophosphamide (FEC100) versus 4 FEC 100 followed by 4 Taxol (FEC-T) in node positive breast cancer patients (Trial B2000). Eur J Cancer. 2014 Jan;50(1):23-30. Epub 2013 Oct 29. link to original article PubMed
WSG-AGO EC-Doc: Nitz U, Gluz O, Huober J, Kreipe HH, Kates RE, Hartmann A, Erber R, Moustafa Z, Scholz M, Lisboa B, Mohrmann S, Möbus V, Augustin D, Hoffmann G, Weiss E, Böhmer S, Kreienberg R, Du Bois A, Sattler D, Thomssen C, Kiechle M, Jänicke F, Wallwiener D, Harbeck N, Kuhn W. Final analysis of the prospective WSG-AGO EC-Doc versus FEC phase III trial in intermediate-risk (pN1) early breast cancer: efficacy and predictive value of Ki67 expression. Ann Oncol. 2014 Aug;25(8):1551-7. Epub 2014 May 14. Erratum in: Ann Oncol. 2017 Nov 1;28(11):2899. link to original article contains protocol PubMed NCT02115204
GIM2: Del Mastro L, De Placido S, Bruzzi P, De Laurentiis M, Boni C, Cavazzini G, Durando A, Turletti A, Nisticò C, Valle E, Garrone O, Puglisi F, Montemurro F, Barni S, Ardizzoni A, Gamucci T, Colantuoni G, Giuliano M, Gravina A, Papaldo P, Bighin C, Bisagni G, Forestieri V, Cognetti F; Gruppo Italiano Mammella. Fluorouracil and dose-dense chemotherapy in adjuvant treatment of patients with early-stage breast cancer: an open-label, 2 × 2 factorial, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2015 May 9;385(9980):1863-72. Epub 2015 Mar 2. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00433420
GONO-MIG5: Del Mastro L, Levaggi A, Michelotti A, Cavazzini G, Adami F, Scotto T, Piras M, Danese S, Garrone O, Durando A, Accortanzo V, Bighin C, Miglietta L, Pastorino S, Pronzato P, Castiglione F, Landucci E, Conte P, Bruzzi P. 5-Fluorouracil, epirubicin and cyclophosphamide versus epirubicin and paclitaxel in node-positive early breast cancer: a phase-III randomized GONO-MIG5 trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016 Jan;155(1):117-26. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT02450058
ADEBAR: Janni W, Harbeck N, Rack B, Augustin D, Jueckstock J, Wischnik A, Annecke K, Scholz C, Huober J, Zwingers T, Friedl TW, Kiechle M. Randomised phase III trial of FEC120 vs EC-docetaxel in patients with high-risk node-positive primary breast cancer: final survival analysis of the ADEBAR study. Br J Cancer. 2016 Apr 12;114(8):863-71. Epub 2016 Mar 31. link to original article link to PMC article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00047099
HMFEC: Coombes RC, Kilburn LS, Tubiana-Mathieu N, Olmos T, Van Bochove A, Perez-Lopez FR, Palmieri C, Stebbing J, Bliss JM. Epirubicin dose and sequential hormonal therapy-Mature results of the HMFEC randomised phase III trial in premenopausal patients with node positive early breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2016 Jun;60:146-53. Epub 2016 Apr 26. link to original article PubMed ISRCTN98335268
UCBG-0106: Kerbrat P, Desmoulins I, Roca L, Levy C, Lortholary A, Marre A, Delva R, Rios M, Viens P, Brain É, Serin D, Edel M, Debled M, Campone M, Mourret-Reynier MA, Bachelot T, Foucher-Goudier MJ, Asselain B, Lemonnier J, Martin AL, Roché H. Optimal duration of adjuvant chemotherapy for high-risk node-negative (N-) breast cancer patients: 6-year results of the prospective randomised multicentre phase III UNICANCER-PACS 05 trial (UCBG-0106). Eur J Cancer. 2017 Jul;79:166-175. Epub 2017 May 11. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
UCBG 2-08: Campone M, Lacroix-Triki M, Roca L, Spielmann M, Wildiers H, Cottu P, Kerbrat P, Levy C, Desmoulins I, Bachelot T, Winston T, Eymard JC, Uwer L, Duhoux FP, Verhoeven D, Jaubert D, Coeffic D, Orfeuvre H, Canon JL, Asselain B, Martin AL, Lemonnier J, Roché H. UCBG 2-08: 5-year efficacy results from the UNICANCER-PACS08 randomised phase III trial of adjuvant treatment with FEC100 and then either docetaxel or ixabepilone in patients with early-stage, poor prognosis breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2018 Nov;103:184-194. Epub 2018 Sep 26. link to original article PubMed NCT00630032
MINDACT: Delaloge S, Piccart M, Rutgers E, Litière S, van 't Veer LJ, van den Berkmortel F, Brain E, Dudek-Peric A, Gil-Gil M, Gomez P, Hilbers FS, Khalil Z, Knox S, Kuemmel S, Kunz G, Lesur A, Pierga JY, Ravdin P, Rubio IT, Saghatchian M, Smilde TJ, Thompson AM, Viale G, Zoppoli G, Vuylsteke P, Tryfonidis K, Poncet C, Bogaerts J, Cardoso F; MINDACT investigators and the TRANSBIG Consortium. Standard Anthracycline Based Versus Docetaxel-Capecitabine in Early High Clinical and/or Genomic Risk Breast Cancer in the EORTC 10041/BIG 3-04 MINDACT Phase III Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Apr 10;38(11):1186-1197. Epub 2020 Feb 21. link to original article contains verified protocol in supplement PubMed NCT00433589

Dose-dense FEC

back to top

ddFEC: dose-dense Fluorouracil, Epirubicin, Cyclophosphamide

Regimen variant #1, 500/75/500

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Mavroudis et al. 2016 (HORG CT/07.17)	2007-2013	Phase 3 (C)	See link	See link

Note: this is a component of a sequential treatment protocol; to our knowledge there are no references to support using it as a stand-alone treatment.

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Fluorouracil (5-FU) 500 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Epirubicin (Ellence) 75 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 500 mg/m² IV once on day 1

Supportive medications

Filgrastim or Pegfilgrastim (Neulasta) support (drug/dose/schedule not specified)

14-day cycle for 4 cycles

Subsequent treatment

Docetaxel

Regimen variant #2, 600/90/600

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Del Mastro et al. 2015 (GIM2)	2003-2006	Phase 3 (E-esc)	See link	See link

Note: a mid-protocol amendment suggested giving the pegilgrastim at least 72 h after chemotherapy. This is a component of a sequential treatment protocol; to our knowledge there are no references to support using it as a stand-alone treatment.

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Fluorouracil (5-FU) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Epirubicin (Ellence) 90 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

Supportive medications

Pegfilgrastim (Neulasta) 6 mg SC once on day 2

14-day cycle for 4 cycles

Subsequent treatment

Dose-dense Paclitaxel

References

GIM2: Del Mastro L, De Placido S, Bruzzi P, De Laurentiis M, Boni C, Cavazzini G, Durando A, Turletti A, Nisticò C, Valle E, Garrone O, Puglisi F, Montemurro F, Barni S, Ardizzoni A, Gamucci T, Colantuoni G, Giuliano M, Gravina A, Papaldo P, Bighin C, Bisagni G, Forestieri V, Cognetti F; Gruppo Italiano Mammella. Fluorouracil and dose-dense chemotherapy in adjuvant treatment of patients with early-stage breast cancer: an open-label, 2 × 2 factorial, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2015 May 9;385(9980):1863-72. Epub 2015 Mar 2. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00433420
HORG CT/07.17: Mavroudis D, Matikas A, Malamos N, Papakotoulas P, Kakolyris S, Boukovinas I, Athanasiadis A, Kentepozidis N, Ziras N, Katsaounis P, Saloustros E, Georgoulias V; HORG. Dose-dense FEC followed by docetaxel versus docetaxel plus cyclophosphamide as adjuvant chemotherapy in women with HER2-negative, axillary lymph node-positive early breast cancer: a multicenter randomized study by the Hellenic Oncology Research Group (HORG). Ann Oncol. 2016 Oct;27(10):1873-8. Epub 2016 Aug 8. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT01985724

FEC-D

back to top

FEC-D: Fluorouracil, Epirubicin, Cyclophosphamide followed by Docetaxel

Protocol

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Roché et al. 2006 (FNCLCC PACS 01)	1997-2000	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	See link	Superior OS¹ (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.62-0.92)
de Gregorio et al. 2020 (SUCCESS-A)	2005-2007	Phase 3 (C)	FEC-DG	Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS
Sakr et al. 2013	2006-2010	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	FEC; FEC 100 x 6	Seems to have superior OS
Foukakis et al. 2016 (PANTHER)	2007-2011	Phase 3 (C)	Dose-dense tailored chemotherapy	Did not meet primary endpoint of RFS
Delaloge et al. 2020 (MINDACT)	2007-2011	Phase 3 (C)	TX (Taxotere)	Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS

¹Reported efficacy for FNCLCC PACS 01 is based on the 2012 update.

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy, FEC portion

Fluorouracil (5-FU) 500 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Epirubicin (Ellence) 100 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 500 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 3 cycles

Chemotherapy, D portion

Docetaxel (Taxotere) 100 mg/m² IV over 60 minutes once on day 1

21-day cycle for 3 cycles

References

FNCLCC PACS 01: Roché H, Fumoleau P, Spielmann M, Canon JL, Delozier T, Serin D, Symann M, Kerbrat P, Soulié P, Eichler F, Viens P, Monnier A, Vindevoghel A, Campone M, Goudier MJ, Bonneterre J, Ferrero JM, Martin AL, Genève J, Asselain B. Sequential adjuvant epirubicin-based and docetaxel chemotherapy for node-positive breast cancer patients: the FNCLCC PACS 01 Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2006 Dec 20;24(36):5664-71. Epub 2006 Nov 20. link to original article PubMed
1. Update: Coudert B, Asselain B, Campone M, Spielmann M, Machiels JP, Pénault-Llorca F, Serin D, Lévy C, Romieu G, Canon JL, Orfeuvre H, Piot G, Petit T, Jerusalem G, Audhuy B, Veyret C, Beauduin M, Eymard JC, Martin AL, Roché H; UNICANCER Breast Group. Extended benefit from sequential administration of docetaxel after standard fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide regimen for node-positive breast cancer: the 8-year follow-up results of the UNICANCER-PACS01 trial. Oncologist. 2012;17(7):900-9. Epub 2012 May 18. link to original article link to PMC article PubMed
Sakr H, Hamed RH, Anter AH, Yossef T. Sequential docetaxel as adjuvant chemotherapy for node-positive or/and T3 or T4 breast cancer: clinical outcome (Mansoura University). Med Oncol. 2013 Mar;30(1):457. Epub 2013 Jan 16. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
PANTHER: Foukakis T, von Minckwitz G, Bengtsson NO, Brandberg Y, Wallberg B, Fornander T, Mlineritsch B, Schmatloch S, Singer CF, Steger G, Egle D, Karlsson E, Carlsson L, Loibl S, Untch M, Hellström M, Johansson H, Anderson H, Malmström P, Gnant M, Greil R, Möbus V, Bergh J; Swedish Breast Cancer Group; German Breast Group; Austrian Breast & Colorectal Cancer Study Group. Effect of tailored dose-dense chemotherapy vs standard 3-weekly adjuvant chemotherapy on recurrence-free survival among women with high-risk early breast cancer: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2016 Nov 8;316(18):1888-1896. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00798070
MINDACT: Delaloge S, Piccart M, Rutgers E, Litière S, van 't Veer LJ, van den Berkmortel F, Brain E, Dudek-Peric A, Gil-Gil M, Gomez P, Hilbers FS, Khalil Z, Knox S, Kuemmel S, Kunz G, Lesur A, Pierga JY, Ravdin P, Rubio IT, Saghatchian M, Smilde TJ, Thompson AM, Viale G, Zoppoli G, Vuylsteke P, Tryfonidis K, Poncet C, Bogaerts J, Cardoso F; MINDACT investigators and the TRANSBIG Consortium. Standard Anthracycline Based Versus Docetaxel-Capecitabine in Early High Clinical and/or Genomic Risk Breast Cancer in the EORTC 10041/BIG 3-04 MINDACT Phase III Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Apr 10;38(11):1186-1197. Epub 2020 Feb 21. link to original article contains verified protocol in supplement PubMed NCT00433589
SUCCESS-A: de Gregorio A, Häberle L, Fasching PA, Müller V, Schrader I, Lorenz R, Forstbauer H, Friedl TWP, Bauer E, de Gregorio N, Deniz M, Fink V, Bekes I, Andergassen U, Schneeweiss A, Tesch H, Mahner S, Brucker SY, Blohmer JU, Fehm TN, Heinrich G, Lato K, Beckmann MW, Rack B, Janni W. Gemcitabine as adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with high-risk early breast cancer-results from the randomized phase III SUCCESS-A trial. Breast Cancer Res. 2020 Oct 23;22(1):111. link to original article link to PMC article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT02181101

Paclitaxel monotherapy, weekly

back to top

T: Taxol (Paclitaxel)
P: Paclitaxel
pT: pacliTaxel
wP: weekly Paclitaxel
wT: weekly Taxol (Paclitaxel)

Regimen variant #1, 80 mg/m² x 12

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Sparano et al. 2008 (ECOG E1199)	1999-2002	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	1. Paclitaxel; q3wk	Superior OS
Sparano et al. 2008 (ECOG E1199)	1999-2002	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	2. Docetaxel; q3wk 3. Docetaxel; weekly	Not reported
Kelly et al. 2012 (MDACC ID01-580)	2002-2008	Phase 3 (C)	XT	Did not meet primary endpoint of RFS
Shulman et al. 2012 (CALGB 40101)	2002-2008	Phase 3 (E-de-esc)	1. AC x 4	Did not meet primary endpoint of RFS
			2. AC x 6	Did not meet primary endpoint of RFS
			3. Paclitaxel; weekly x 18	Did not meet primary endpoint of RFS
Budd et al. 2014 (SWOG S0221)	2003-2010	Phase 3 (C)	ddT x 6	Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS
Miller et al. 2018 (ECOG E5103)	2007-2011	Phase 3 (C)	See link	See link

Note: In CALGB 40101, this is the dosing before a mid-protocol amendment in 2003. This is a component of a sequential treatment protocol; to our knowledge there are no references to support using it as a stand-alone treatment.

Preceding treatment

ECOG E1199: Surgery, then AC x 4
MDACC ID01-580: Surgery
SWOG S0221: Surgery, then ddAC x 6 versus continuous AC
ECOG E5103: Surgery, then AC x 4 or ddAC x 4

Chemotherapy

Paclitaxel (Taxol) 80 mg/m² IV over 60 minutes once per day on days 1, 8, 15

21-day cycle for 4 cycles

Subsequent treatment

MDACC ID01-580: FEC x 4

Regimen variant #2, 100 mg/m² x 8

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Martín et al. 2008 (GEICAM 9906)	1999-2002	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	See link	See link
Martín et al. 2013 (GEICAM 2003-02)	2003-2008	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	See link	See link

Note: this is a component of a sequential treatment protocol; to our knowledge there are no references to support using it as a stand-alone treatment.

Preceding treatment

GEICAM 9906: Surgery, then FEC x 4
GEICAM 2003-02: Surgery, then FAC x 4

Chemotherapy

Paclitaxel (Taxol) 100 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1, 8, 15, 22

28-day cycle for 2 cycles

References

ECOG E1199: Sparano JA, Wang M, Martino S, Jones V, Perez EA, Saphner T, Wolff AC, Sledge GW Jr, Wood WC, Davidson NE. Weekly paclitaxel in the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2008 Apr 17;358(16):1663-71. link to original article link to PMC article PubMed NCT00004125
1. Update: Sparano JA, Zhao F, Martino S, Ligibel JA, Perez EA, Saphner T, Wolff AC, Sledge GW Jr, Wood WC, Davidson NE. Long-term follow-up of the E1199 phase III trial evaluating the role of taxane and schedule in operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015 Jul 20;33(21):2353-60. Epub 2015 Jun 15. link to original article link to PMC article PubMed
GEICAM 9906: Martín M, Rodríguez-Lescure A, Ruiz A, Alba E, Calvo L, Ruiz-Borrego M, Munárriz B, Rodríguez CA, Crespo C, de Alava E, López García-Asenjo JA, Guitián MD, Almenar S, González-Palacios JF, Vera F, Palacios J, Ramos M, Gracia Marco JM, Lluch A, Alvarez I, Seguí MA, Mayordomo JI, Antón A, Baena JM, Plazaola A, Modolell A, Pelegrí A, Mel JR, Aranda E, Adrover E, Alvarez JV, García Puche JL, Sánchez-Rovira P, Gonzalez S, López-Vega JM; GEICAM. Randomized phase 3 trial of fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide alone or followed by paclitaxel for early breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008 Jun 4;100(11):805-14. Epub 2008 May 27. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00129922
MDACC ID01-580: Kelly CM, Green MC, Broglio K, Thomas ES, Brewster AM, Valero V, Ibrahim NK, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Booser DJ, Walters RS, Hunt KK, Hortobagyi GN, Buzdar AU. Phase III trial evaluating weekly paclitaxel versus docetaxel in combination with capecitabine in operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2012 Mar 20;30(9):930-5. Epub 2012 Feb 13. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00050167
CALGB 40101: Shulman LN, Cirrincione CT, Berry DA, Becker HP, Perez EA, O'Regan R, Martino S, Atkins JN, Mayer E, Schneider CJ, Kimmick G, Norton L, Muss H, Winer EP, Hudis C. Six cycles of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide or paclitaxel are not superior to four cycles as adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer in women with zero to three positive axillary nodes: Cancer and Leukemia Group B 40101. J Clin Oncol. 2012 Nov 20;30(33):4071-6. Epub 2012 Jul 23. link to original article contains verified protocol link to study protocol PDF link to PMC article PubMed NCT00041119
1. Update: Shulman LN, Berry DA, Cirrincione CT, Becker HP, Perez EA, O'Regan R, Martino S, Shapiro CL, Schneider CJ, Kimmick G, Burstein HJ, Norton L, Muss H, Hudis CA, Winer EP. Comparison of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide versus single-agent paclitaxel as adjuvant therapy for breast cancer in women with 0 to 3 positive axillary nodes: CALGB 40101 (Alliance). J Clin Oncol. 2014 Aug 1;32(22):2311-7. link to original article link to PMC article PubMed
GEICAM 2003-02: Martín M, Ruiz A, Ruiz Borrego M, Barnadas A, González S, Calvo L, Margelí Vila M, Antón A, Rodríguez-Lescure A, Seguí-Palmer MA, Muñoz-Mateu M, Dorca Ribugent J, López-Vega JM, Jara C, Espinosa E, Mendiola Fernández C, Andrés R, Ribelles N, Plazaola A, Sánchez-Rovira P, Salvador Bofill J, Crespo C, Carabantes FJ, Servitja S, Chacón JI, Rodríguez CA, Hernando B, Álvarez I, Carrasco E, Lluch A. Fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FAC) versus FAC followed by weekly paclitaxel as adjuvant therapy for high-risk, node-negative breast cancer: results from the GEICAM/2003-02 study. J Clin Oncol. 2013 Jul 10;31(20):2593-9. Epub 2013 Jun 3. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00129389
SWOG S0221: Budd GT, Barlow WE, Moore HC, Hobday TJ, Stewart JA, Isaacs C, Salim M, Cho JK, Rinn KJ, Albain KS, Chew HK, Burton GV, Moore TD, Srkalovic G, McGregor BA, Flaherty LE, Livingston RB, Lew DL, Gralow JR, Hortobagyi GN. SWOG S0221: a phase III trial comparing chemotherapy schedules in high-risk early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015 Jan 1;33(1):58-64. Epub 2014 Nov 24. link to original article contains verified protocol link to PMC article PubMed NCT00070564
ECOG E5103: Miller KD, O'Neill A, Gradishar W, Hobday TJ, Goldstein LJ, Mayer IA, Bloom S, Brufsky AM, Tevaarwerk AJ, Sparano JA, Le-Lindqwister NA, Hendricks CB, Northfelt DW, Dang CT, Sledge GW Jr. Double-blind phase III trial of adjuvant chemotherapy with and without bevacizumab in patients with lymph node-positive and high-risk lymph node-negative breast cancer (E5103). J Clin Oncol. 2018 Sep 1;36(25):2621-2629. Epub 2018 Jul 24. link to original article refers to ECOG E1199 protocol PubMed NCT00433511

Paclitaxel monotherapy, dose-dense (q2wk)

back to top

ddT: dose-dense Taxol (Paclitaxel)
ddP: dose-dense Paclitaxel

Regimen variant #1, 175 mg/m² x 4

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Citron et al. 2003 (CALGB 9741)	1997-1999	Phase 3 (E-esc)	See link	See link
Shulman et al. 2012 (CALGB 40101)	2002-2008	Phase 3 (E-de-esc)	1. ddAC x 4	Did not meet primary endpoint of RFS
			2. ddAC x 6	Did not meet primary endpoint of RFS
			3. ddT x 6	Did not meet primary endpoint of RFS
Burstein et al. 2005	2003-2004	Non-randomized
Del Mastro et al. 2015 (GIM2)	2003-2006	Phase 3 (E-esc)	See link	See link
Swain et al. 2013 (NSABP B-38)	2004-2007	Phase 3 (C)	See link	See link

Note: in CALGB 40101, this is the dosing after a mid-protocol amendment in 2003.

Preceding treatment

CALGB 9741: ddA x 4
Burstein et al. 2005: Neoadjuvant ddAC, then surgery or surgery, then adjuvant ddAC
CALGB 40101: Surgery, within 90 days
NSABP B-38: ddAC x 4
GIM2: ddEC x 4 versus ddFEC x 4

Chemotherapy

Paclitaxel (Taxol) 175 mg/m² IV over 3 hours once on day 1

Supportive medications

Diphenhydramine (Benadryl) 12.5 to 50 mg IV once on day 1; 30 to 60 minutes prior to Paclitaxel (Taxol)
One of the following H2 blockers:
- Ranitidine (Zantac) 50 mg IV once on day 1; 30 to 60 minutes prior to Paclitaxel (Taxol)
- Cimetidine (Tagamet) 300 mg IV once on day 1; 30 to 60 minutes prior to Paclitaxel (Taxol)
- Famotidine (Pepcid) 20 mg IV once on day 1; 30 to 60 minutes prior to Paclitaxel (Taxol)
One of the following dexamethasone choices:
- Dexamethasone (Decadron) 10 mg IV once on day 1, within 60 minutes prior to Paclitaxel (Taxol)
- Dexamethasone (Decadron) 10 mg PO once on day 1, at least 60 minutes prior to Paclitaxel (Taxol)
- Dexamethasone (Decadron) 20 mg PO twice on day 1; 6 hours and 12 hours prior to Paclitaxel (Taxol)
Recommended growth factor support with one of the following:
- Filgrastim (Neupogen) 5 mcg/kg (rounded to 300 mcg or 480 mcg, whichever is closer) SC once per day on days 3 to 10; may be discontinued before day 10 if ANC has recovered to an "acceptable range, as determined by the treating physician"
- Sargramostim (Leukine) 250 to 500 mcg/m² SC once per day on days 3 to 10; may be discontinued before day 10 if ANC has recovered to an "acceptable range, as determined by the treating physician"
- Pegfilgrastim (Neulasta) 6 mg SC once, given 24 to 36 hours after chemotherapy
  - GIM2: a mid-protocol amendment suggested giving the pegilgrastim at least 72 h after chemotherapy

14-day cycle for 4 cycles

Subsequent treatment

CALGB 9741: ddC x 4

Regimen variant #2, 175 mg/m² x 6

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Budd et al. 2014 (SWOG S0221)	2003-2010	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	Paclitaxel; weekly	Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS

Note: this is a component of a sequential treatment protocol; to our knowledge there are no references to support using it as a stand-alone treatment.

Preceding treatment

ddAC x 6 versus continuous AC

Chemotherapy

Paclitaxel (Taxol) 175 mg/m² IV over 3 hours once on day 1

Supportive medications

Pegfilgrastim (Neulasta) 6 mg SC once on day 2

14-day cycle for 6 cycles

Regimen variant #3, 200 mg/m² x 4

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence
Kahan et al. 2005	2000-2003	Phase II

Note: this is a component of a sequential treatment protocol; to our knowledge there are no references to support using it as a stand-alone treatment.

Preceding treatment

ddA x 4

Chemotherapy

Paclitaxel (Taxol) 200 mg/m² IV over 3 hours day 1

Supportive medications

Filgrastim (Neupogen)

14-day cycle for 4 cycles

Subsequent treatment

ddC

References

CALGB 9741: Citron ML, Berry DA, Cirrincione C, Hudis C, Winer EP, Gradishar WJ, Davidson NE, Martino S, Livingston R, Ingle JN, Perez EA, Carpenter J, Hurd D, Holland JF, Smith BL, Sartor CI, Leung EH, Abrams J, Schilsky RL, Muss HB, Norton L. Randomized trial of dose-dense versus conventionally scheduled and sequential versus concurrent combination chemotherapy as postoperative adjuvant treatment of node-positive primary breast cancer: first report of Intergroup Trial C9741/Cancer and Leukemia Group B Trial 9741. J Clin Oncol. 2003 Apr 15;21(8):1431-9. Epub 2003 Feb 13. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00003088
Kahan Z, Uhercsak G, Hajnal-Papp R, Boda K, Thurzo L. Dose-dense sequential adriamycin-paclitaxel-cyclophosphamide chemotherapy is well tolerated and safe in high-risk early breast cancer. Oncology. 2005;68(4-6):446-53. Epub 2005 Jul 13. link to original article PubMed
1. Update: Kelemen G, Uhercsák G, Ormándi K, Eller J, Thurzó L, Kahán Z. Long-term efficiency and toxicity of adjuvant dose-dense sequential adriamycin-Paclitaxel-cyclophosphamide chemotherapy in high-risk breast cancer. Oncology. 2010;78(3-4):271-3. Epub 2010 Jun 7. link to original article PubMed
Burstein HJ, Parker LM, Keshaviah A, Doherty J, Partridge AH, Schapira L, Ryan PD, Younger J, Harris LN, Moy B, Come SE, Schumer ST, Bunnell CA, Haldoupis M, Gelman R, Winer EP. Efficacy of pegfilgrastim and darbepoetin alfa as hematopoietic support for dose-dense every-2-week adjuvant breast cancer chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Nov 20;23(33):8340-7. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
CALGB 40101: Shulman LN, Cirrincione CT, Berry DA, Becker HP, Perez EA, O'Regan R, Martino S, Atkins JN, Mayer E, Schneider CJ, Kimmick G, Norton L, Muss H, Winer EP, Hudis C. Six cycles of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide or paclitaxel are not superior to four cycles as adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer in women with zero to three positive axillary nodes: Cancer and Leukemia Group B 40101. J Clin Oncol. 2012 Nov 20;30(33):4071-6. Epub 2012 Jul 23. link to original article contains verified protocol link to study protocol PDF link to PMC article PubMed NCT00041119
1. Update: Shulman LN, Berry DA, Cirrincione CT, Becker HP, Perez EA, O'Regan R, Martino S, Shapiro CL, Schneider CJ, Kimmick G, Burstein HJ, Norton L, Muss H, Hudis CA, Winer EP. Comparison of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide versus single-agent paclitaxel as adjuvant therapy for breast cancer in women with 0 to 3 positive axillary nodes: CALGB 40101 (Alliance). J Clin Oncol. 2014 Aug 1;32(22):2311-7. link to original article link to PMC article PubMed
NSABP B-38: Swain SM, Tang G, Geyer CE Jr, Rastogi P, Atkins JN, Donnellan PP, Fehrenbacher L, Azar CA, Robidoux A, Polikoff JA, Brufsky AM, Biggs DD, Levine EA, Zapas JL, Provencher L, Northfelt DW, Paik S, Costantino JP, Mamounas EP, Wolmark N. Definitive results of a phase III adjuvant trial comparing three chemotherapy regimens in women with operable, node-positive breast cancer: the NSABP B-38 trial. J Clin Oncol. 2013 Sep 10;31(26):3197-204. Epub 2013 Aug 12. link to original article link to PMC article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00093795
SWOG S0221: Budd GT, Barlow WE, Moore HC, Hobday TJ, Stewart JA, Isaacs C, Salim M, Cho JK, Rinn KJ, Albain KS, Chew HK, Burton GV, Moore TD, Srkalovic G, McGregor BA, Flaherty LE, Livingston RB, Lew DL, Gralow JR, Hortobagyi GN. SWOG S0221: a phase III trial comparing chemotherapy schedules in high-risk early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015 Jan 1;33(1):58-64. Epub 2014 Nov 24. link to original article contains verified protocol link to PMC article PubMed NCT00070564
GIM2: Del Mastro L, De Placido S, Bruzzi P, De Laurentiis M, Boni C, Cavazzini G, Durando A, Turletti A, Nisticò C, Valle E, Garrone O, Puglisi F, Montemurro F, Barni S, Ardizzoni A, Gamucci T, Colantuoni G, Giuliano M, Gravina A, Papaldo P, Bighin C, Bisagni G, Forestieri V, Cognetti F; Gruppo Italiano Mammella. Fluorouracil and dose-dense chemotherapy in adjuvant treatment of patients with early-stage breast cancer: an open-label, 2 × 2 factorial, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2015 May 9;385(9980):1863-72. Epub 2015 Mar 2. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00433420

TAC (Taxotere)

back to top

TAC: Taxotere (Docetaxel), Adriamycin (Doxorubicin), Cyclophosphamide
ACT: Adriamycin (Doxorubicin), Cyclophosphamide, Taxotere (Docetaxel)

Regimen variant #1, 4 cycles

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Swain et al. 2010 (NSABP B-30)	1999-2004	Phase 3 (C)	1. AC-D	Might have inferior OS
Swain et al. 2010 (NSABP B-30)	1999-2004	Phase 3 (C)	2. AT	Not reported

Note: this was a mid-protocol dosing amendment.

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Docetaxel (Taxotere) 75 mg/m² IV over 60 minutes once on day 1
Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 50 mg/m² IV over 15 minutes once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 500 mg/m² IV over 1 to 5 minutes once on day 1

21-day cycle for 4 cycles

Regimen variant #2, 6 cycles

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Martin et al. 2005 (BCIRG 001)	1997-1999	Phase 3 (E-RT-switch-ic)	FAC	Superior OS
Martín et al. 2010 (GEICAM 9805)	1999-2003	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	FAC	Superior DFS (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.49-0.93)
Eiermann et al. 2011 (BCIRG-005)	2000-2003	Phase 3 (C)	AC-D	Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS60
Swain et al. 2013 (NSABP B-38)	2004-2007	Phase 3 (C)	1. ddAC, then ddP	Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS
Swain et al. 2013 (NSABP B-38)	2004-2007	Phase 3 (C)	2. ddAC, then ddPG	Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS
van Rossum et al. 2018 (MATADOR)	2004-2012	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	ddAC	Did not meet secondary endpoints of RFS/OS
Blum et al. 2017 (USOR 06-090)	2007-2009	Phase 3 (C)	TC	Seems to have superior IDFS
Blum et al. 2017 (NSABP-46-I/USOR 07132)	2009-2012	Phase 3 (C)	TC	Seems to have superior IDFS
Blum et al. 2017 (NSABP B-49)	2012-2013	Phase 3 (C)	TC	Seems to have superior IDFS

Note: Blum et al. 2017 is a pooled analysis of three RCTs, some of which had arms other than TAC and TC. Refer to the paper for further details.

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Docetaxel (Taxotere) 75 mg/m² IV over 60 minutes once on day 1, given third, one hour after cyclophosphamide
Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 50 mg/m² IV over 15 minutes once on day 1, given first
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 500 mg/m² IV over 1 to 5 minutes once on day 1, given second

Supportive medications

Dexamethasone (Decadron) 8 mg PO every 12 hours for 6 total doses, starting the day before treatment
Ciprofloxacin (Cipro) 500 mg PO twice per day on days 5 to 14
G-CSF not originally routinely administered unless patients had febrile neutropenia, but some guidelines recommend one of the following:
- Filgrastim (Neupogen) 5 mcg/kg SC once per day on days 4 to 11
- Lenograstim (Granocyte) 150 mcg/m² SC once per day on days 4 to 11

21-day cycle for 6 cycles

References

BCIRG 001: Martín M, Pienkowski T, Mackey J, Pawlicki M, Guastalla JP, Weaver C, Tomiak E, Al-Tweigeri T, Chap L, Juhos E, Guevin R, Howell A, Fornander T, Hainsworth J, Coleman R, Vinholes J, Modiano M, Pinter T, Tang SC, Colwell B, Prady C, Provencher L, Walde D, Rodriguez-Lescure A, Hugh J, Loret C, Rupin M, Blitz S, Jacobs P, Murawsky M, Riva A, Vogel C; Breast Cancer International Research Group. Adjuvant docetaxel for node-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005 Jun 2;352(22):2302-13. link to original article contains protocol PubMed NCT00688740
1. Update: Mackey JR, Martín M, Pienkowski T, Rolski J, Guastalla JP, Sami A, Glaspy J, Juhos E, Wardley A, Fornander T, Hainsworth J, Coleman R, Modiano MR, Vinholes J, Pinter T, Rodríguez-Lescure A, Colwell B, Whitlock P, Provencher L, Laing K, Walde D, Price C, Hugh JC, Childs BH, Bassi K, Lindsay MA, Wilson V, Rupin M, Houé V, Vogel C; TRIO/BCIRG 001 investigators. Adjuvant docetaxel, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide in node-positive breast cancer: 10-year follow-up of the phase 3 randomised BCIRG 001 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013 Jan;14(1):72-80. Epub 2012 Dec 12. link to original article PubMed
NSABP B-30: Swain SM, Jeong JH, Geyer CE Jr, Costantino JP, Pajon ER, Fehrenbacher L, Atkins JN, Polikoff J, Vogel VG, Erban JK, Rastogi P, Livingston RB, Perez EA, Mamounas EP, Land SR, Ganz PA, Wolmark N. Longer therapy, iatrogenic amenorrhea, and survival in early breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010 Jun 3;362(22):2053-65. link to original article link to PMC article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00003782
GEICAM 9805: Martín M, Seguí MA, Antón A, Ruiz A, Ramos M, Adrover E, Aranda I, Rodríguez-Lescure A, Grosse R, Calvo L, Barnadas A, Isla D, Martinez del Prado P, Ruiz Borrego M, Zaluski J, Arcusa A, Muñoz M, López Vega JM, Mel JR, Munarriz B, Llorca C, Jara C, Alba E, Florián J, Li J, López García-Asenjo JA, Sáez A, Rios MJ, Almenar S, Peiró G, Lluch A; GEICAM. Adjuvant docetaxel for high-risk, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010 Dec 2;363(23):2200-10. link to original article PubMed NCT00121992
BCIRG-005: Eiermann W, Pienkowski T, Crown J, Sadeghi S, Martín M, Chan A, Saleh M, Sehdev S, Provencher L, Semiglazov V, Press M, Sauter G, Lindsay MA, Riva A, Buyse M, Drevot P, Taupin H, Mackey JR. Phase III study of doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide with concomitant versus sequential docetaxel as adjuvant treatment in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-normal, node-positive breast cancer: BCIRG-005 trial. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Oct 10;29(29):3877-84. Epub 2011 Sep 12. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00312208
1. Update: Mackey JR, Pieńkowski T, Crown J, Sadeghi S, Martín M, Chan A, Saleh M, Sehdev S, Provencher L, Semiglazov V, Press MF, Sauter G, Lindsay M, Houé V, Buyse M, Drevot P, Hitier S, Bensfia S, Eiermann W; Translational Research In Oncology (TRIO)/ Breast Cancer International Research Group (BCIRG)-005 investigators. Long-term outcomes after adjuvant treatment of sequential versus combination docetaxel with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide in node-positive breast cancer: BCIRG-005 randomized trial. Ann Oncol. 2016 Jun;27(6):1041-7. Epub 2016 Mar 2. link to original article PubMed
NSABP B-38: Swain SM, Tang G, Geyer CE Jr, Rastogi P, Atkins JN, Donnellan PP, Fehrenbacher L, Azar CA, Robidoux A, Polikoff JA, Brufsky AM, Biggs DD, Levine EA, Zapas JL, Provencher L, Northfelt DW, Paik S, Costantino JP, Mamounas EP, Wolmark N. Definitive results of a phase III adjuvant trial comparing three chemotherapy regimens in women with operable, node-positive breast cancer: the NSABP B-38 trial. J Clin Oncol. 2013 Sep 10;31(26):3197-204. Epub 2013 Aug 12. link to original article link to PMC article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00093795
USOR 06-090; NSABP-46-I/USOR 07132; NSABP B-49: Blum JL, Flynn PJ, Yothers G, Asmar L, Geyer CE Jr, Jacobs SA, Robert NJ, Hopkins JO, O'Shaughnessy JA, Dang CT, Gómez HL, Fehrenbacher L, Vukelja SJ, Lyss AP, Paul D, Brufsky AM, Jeong JH, Colangelo LH, Swain SM, Mamounas EP, Jones SE, Wolmark N. Anthracyclines in early breast cancer: The ABC trials-USOR 06-090, NSABP B-46-I/USOR 07132, and NSABP B-49 (NRG Oncology). J Clin Oncol. 2017 Aug 10;35(23):2647-2655. Epub 2017 Apr 11. link to original article link to PMC article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00493870; NCT00887536; NCT01547741
MATADOR: van Rossum AGJ, Kok M, van Werkhoven E, Opdam M, Mandjes IAM, van Leeuwen-Stok AE, van Tinteren H, Imholz ALT, Portielje JEA, Bos MMEM, van Bochove A, Wesseling J, Rutgers EJ, Linn SC, Oosterkamp HM; MATADOR Trialists' Group. Adjuvant dose-dense doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide versus docetaxel-doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide for high-risk breast cancer: first results of the randomised MATADOR trial (BOOG 2004-04). Eur J Cancer. 2018 Oct;102:40-48. link to original article contains protocol PubMed ISRCTN61893718

Vinorelbine monotherapy

back to top

V: Vinorelbine

Regimen

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Joensuu et al. 2006 (FinHer)	2000-2003	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	Docetaxel	Inferior DDFS

Note: Patients without HER2/neu amplification were only randomized to this arm verus the docetaxel arm.

Preceding treatment

Surgery

Chemotherapy

Vinorelbine (Navelbine) as follows:
- Cycles 1 & 2: 25 mg/m² IV over 5 to 10 minutes once per day on days 1, 8, 15
- Cycle 3: 25 mg/m² IV over 5 to 10 minutes once per day on days 1 & 8

21-day cycle for 3 cycles

Subsequent treatment

FEC

References

FinHer: Joensuu H, Kellokumpu-Lehtinen PL, Bono P, Alanko T, Kataja V, Asola R, Utriainen T, Kokko R, Hemminki A, Tarkkanen M, Turpeenniemi-Hujanen T, Jyrkkiö S, Flander M, Helle L, Ingalsuo S, Johansson K, Jääskeläinen AS, Pajunen M, Rauhala M, Kaleva-Kerola J, Salminen T, Leinonen M, Elomaa I, Isola J; FinHer Study Investigators. Adjuvant docetaxel or vinorelbine with or without trastuzumab for breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2006 Feb 23;354(8):809-20. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed ISRCTN76560285
1. Update: Joensuu H, Bono P, Kataja V, Alanko T, Kokko R, Asola R, Utriainen T, Turpeenniemi-Hujanen T, Jyrkkiö S, Möykkynen K, Helle L, Ingalsuo S, Pajunen M, Huusko M, Salminen T, Auvinen P, Leinonen H, Leinonen M, Isola J, Kellokumpu-Lehtinen PL. Fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide with either docetaxel or vinorelbine, with or without trastuzumab, as adjuvant treatments of breast cancer: final results of the FinHer trial. J Clin Oncol. 2009 Dec 1;27(34):5685-92. link to original article PubMed

Metastatic disease, first-line chemotherapy

Note: in many of these regimens, patients were allowed to have received (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy and hormonal therapy (when applicable). These are first-line regimens in the metastatic setting, with a few being specifically for the locally advanced but unresectable setting.

Cyclophosphamide & Doxorubicin (AC)

back to top

AC: Adriamycin (Doxorubicin) & Cyclophosphamide

Regimen variant #1, 40/400

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Rosner et al. 1987	1981-1985	Randomized (E-de-esc)	1. CFP 2. CMFVP	Did not meet primary endpoint of OS

Chemotherapy

Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 40 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 400 mg/m² IV once on day 1

28-day cycles

Regimen variant #2, 40/500

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Katsumata et al. 2009 (JCOG9802)	1999-2003	Phase 3 (C)	1. AC/D 2. Docetaxel	Did not meet primary endpoint of TTF

Chemotherapy

Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 40 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 500 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 6 cycles

Regimen variant #3, 40/800 (PO)

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Jones et al. 1975	1973-1974	Non-randomized
Tranum et al. 1982 (SWOG-7405B)	1974-1977	Phase 3 (E-de-esc)	1. FAC 2. A, then CMFVP	Did not meet primary endpoint of ORR

Chemotherapy

Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 40 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 200 mg/m²/day PO in divided doses on days 3 to 6

21- to 28-day cycles

Regimen variant #4, 50/750

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Forbes 1986	1978-1981	Randomized (C)	1. ACT 2. Tamoxifen	Did not meet primary endpoint of OS

Chemotherapy

Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 50 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 750 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for up to 9 cycles

Regimen variant #5, 60/600

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Biganzoli et al. 2002 (EORTC 10961)	1996-1999	Phase 3 (C)	AT (Taxol)	Did not meet primary endpoint of PFS
Nabholtz et al. 2003 (TAX 306)	NR	Phase 3 (C)	AT (Taxotere)	Seems to have inferior TTP

Chemotherapy

Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 60 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycles (see note)

Regimen variant #6, with range

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Robert et al. 2011 (RIBBON-1)	2005-2007	Phase 3 (C)	AC & Bevacizumab	Inferior PFS

Chemotherapy

Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 50 to 60 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 500 to 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for up to 8 cycles

References

Jones SE, Durie BG, Salmon SE. Combination chemotherapy with adriamycin and cyclophosphamide for advanced breast cancer. Cancer. 1975 Jul;36(1):90-7. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
SWOG-7405B: Tranum BL, McDonald B, Thigpen T, Vaughn C, Wilson H, Maloney T, Costanzi J, Bickers J, el Mawli NG, Palmer R, Hoogstraten B, Heilburn L, Rasmusen S; SWOG. Adriamycin combinations in advanced breast cancer: a Southwest Oncology Group Study. Cancer. 1982 Mar 1;49(5):835-9. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
Forbes JF; Australian and New Zealand Breast Cancer Trials Group, Clinical Oncological Society of Australia. A randomized trial in postmenopausal patients with advanced breast cancer comparing endocrine and cytotoxic therapy given sequentially or in combination. J Clin Oncol. 1986 Feb;4(2):186-93. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
Rosner D, Nemoto T, Lane WW. A randomized study of intensive versus moderate chemotherapy programs in metastatic breast cancer. Cancer. 1987 Mar 1;59(5):874-83. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
EORTC 10961: Biganzoli L, Cufer T, Bruning P, Coleman R, Duchateau L, Calvert AH, Gamucci T, Twelves C, Fargeot P, Epelbaum R, Lohrisch C, Piccart MJ. Doxorubicin and paclitaxel versus doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide as first-line chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 10961 multicenter phase III trial. J Clin Oncol. 2002 Jul 15;20(14):3114-21. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
TAX 306: Nabholtz JM, Falkson C, Campos D, Szanto J, Martín M, Chan S, Pienkowski T, Zaluski J, Pinter T, Krzakowski M, Vorobiof D, Leonard R, Kennedy I, Azli N, Murawsky M, Riva A, Pouillart P; TAX 306 Study Group. Docetaxel and doxorubicin compared with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide as first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer: results of a randomized, multicenter, phase III trial. J Clin Oncol. 2003 Mar 15;21(6):968-75. link to original article PubMed
JCOG9802: Katsumata N, Watanabe T, Minami H, Aogi K, Tabei T, Sano M, Masuda N, Andoh J, Ikeda T, Shibata T, Takashima S. Phase III trial of doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide (AC), docetaxel, and alternating AC and docetaxel as front-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer: Japan Clinical Oncology Group trial (JCOG9802). Ann Oncol. 2009 Jul;20(7):1210-5. Epub 2009 Mar 2. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
RIBBON-1: Robert NJ, Diéras V, Glaspy J, Brufsky AM, Bondarenko I, Lipatov ON, Perez EA, Yardley DA, Chan SY, Zhou X, Phan SC, O'Shaughnessy J. RIBBON-1: randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial of chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab for first-line treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Apr 1;29(10):1252-60. Epub 2011 Mar 7. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00262067

Cyclophosphamide & Doxorubicin (AC) & Bevacizumab

back to top

AC & Bevacizumab: Adriamycin (Doxorubicin), Cyclophosphamide, Bevacizumab

Regimen variant #1, with range

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Robert et al. 2011 (RIBBON-1)	2005-2007	Phase 3 (E-esc)	AC	Superior PFS (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.52-0.80)

Chemotherapy

Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 50 to 60 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 500 to 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

Targeted therapy

Bevacizumab (Avastin) 15 mg/kg IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for up to 8 cycles

Subsequent treatment

Bevacizumab maintenance, if no PD

References

RIBBON-1: Robert NJ, Diéras V, Glaspy J, Brufsky AM, Bondarenko I, Lipatov ON, Perez EA, Yardley DA, Chan SY, Zhou X, Phan SC, O'Shaughnessy J. RIBBON-1: randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial of chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab for first-line treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Apr 1;29(10):1252-60. Epub 2011 Mar 7. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00262067

Doxorubicin & Paclitaxel (AT)

back to top

AT: Adriamycin (Doxorubicin) & Taxol (Paclitaxel)

Regimen variant #1, 50/150

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Sledge et al. 2003 (ECOG E1193)	1993-1995	Phase 3 (E-esc)	1. Doxorubicin 2. Paclitaxel; q3wk	Superior TTF

Chemotherapy

Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) as follows, given first:
- Cycles 1 to 8: 50 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Paclitaxel (Taxol) 150 mg/m² IV continuous infusion over 24 hours, started on day 1, given second, 3 hours after doxorubicin

21-day cycles

Regimen variant #2, 50/175

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Cassier et al. 2007 (ERASME 3)	2000-2004	Phase 3 (C)	AT (Taxotere)	Might have superior OS

Chemotherapy

Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 50 mg/m² IV over 15 minutes once on day 1, given first
Paclitaxel (Taxol) 175 mg/m² IV over 3 hours once on day 1, given second

21-day cycle for 4 cycles

Subsequent treatment

Paclitaxel x 4

Regimen variant #3, 50/220

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Jassem et al. 2001	1996-1998	Phase 3 (E-de-esc)	FAC	Seems to have superior OS

Chemotherapy

Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 50 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Paclitaxel (Taxol) 220 mg/m² IV over 3 hours once on day 2

21-day cycle for up to 8 cycles

Regimen variant #4, 60/200

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Biganzoli et al. 2002 (EORTC 10961)	1996-1999	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	AC	Did not meet primary endpoint of PFS
Schmid et al. 2005	1998-2002	Phase 3 (C)	Tandem auto HSCT	Did not meet primary endpoint of CR rate

Note: in EORTC 10961, first cycle of paclitaxel was 175 mg/m².

Chemotherapy

Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 60 mg/m² IV over 15 minutes once on day 1
Paclitaxel (Taxol) 200 mg/m² IV over 3 hours once on day 1

21-day cycle for up to 6 cycles

Regimen variant #5, with range

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence
Gianni et al. 1995	1993-1994	Non-randomized

Chemotherapy

Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 60 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Paclitaxel (Taxol) 125 to 200 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycles

References

Gianni L, Munzone E, Capri G, Fulfaro F, Tarenzi E, Villani F, Spreafico C, Laffranchi A, Caraceni A, Martini C, Stefanelli M, Valagussa P, Bonadonna G. Paclitaxel by 3-hour infusion in combination with bolus doxorubicin in women with untreated metastatic breast cancer: high antitumor efficacy and cardiac effects in a dose-finding and sequence-finding study. J Clin Oncol. 1995 Nov;13(11):2688-99. link to original article PubMed
Jassem J, Pieńkowski T, Płuzańska A, Jelic S, Gorbunova V, Mrsic-Krmpotic Z, Berzins J, Nagykalnai T, Wigler N, Renard J, Munier S, Weil C; Central & Eastern Europe and Israel Pacitaxel Breast Cancer Study Group. Doxorubicin and paclitaxel versus fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide as first-line therapy for women with metastatic breast cancer: final results of a randomized phase III multicenter trial. J Clin Oncol. 2001 Mar 15;19(6):1707-15. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
EORTC 10961: Biganzoli L, Cufer T, Bruning P, Coleman R, Duchateau L, Calvert AH, Gamucci T, Twelves C, Fargeot P, Epelbaum R, Lohrisch C, Piccart MJ. Doxorubicin and paclitaxel versus doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide as first-line chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 10961 multicenter phase III trial. J Clin Oncol. 2002 Jul 15;20(14):3114-21. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
ECOG E1193: Sledge GW, Neuberg D, Bernardo P, Ingle JN, Martino S, Rowinsky EK, Wood WC. Phase III trial of doxorubicin, paclitaxel, and the combination of doxorubicin and paclitaxel as front-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer: an intergroup trial (E1193). J Clin Oncol. 2003 Feb 15;21(4):588-92. link to original article PubMed
Schmid P, Schippinger W, Nitsch T, Huebner G, Heilmann V, Schultze W, Hausmaninger H, Wischnewsky M, Possinger K. Up-front tandem high-dose chemotherapy compared with standard chemotherapy with doxorubicin and paclitaxel in metastatic breast cancer: results of a randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Jan 20;23(3):432-40. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
ERASME 3: Cassier PA, Chabaud S, Trillet-Lenoir V, Peaud PY, Tigaud JD, Cure H, Orfeuvre H, Salles B, Martin C, Jacquin JP, Agostini C, Guastalla JP, Pérol D, Bachelot T. A phase-III trial of doxorubicin and docetaxel versus doxorubicin and paclitaxel in metastatic breast cancer: results of the ERASME 3 study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008 May;109(2):343-50. Epub 2007 Jul 5. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed

Docetaxel & Doxorubicin (AT)

back to top

AT: Adriamycin (Doxorubicin) & Taxotere (Docetaxel)
AD: Adriamycin (Doxorubicin) & Docetaxel

Regimen variant #1, 50/75 x 4

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Cassier et al. 2007 (ERASME 3)	2000-2004	Phase 3 (C)	AT (Taxol)	Might have inferior OS

Chemotherapy

Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 50 mg/m² IV over 15 minutes once on day 1, given first
Docetaxel (Taxotere) 75 mg/m² IV over 60 minutes once on day 1, given second

21-day cycle for 4 cycles

Subsequent treatment

Docetaxel x 4

Regimen variant #2, 50/75 x 6

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy	Comparative Toxicity
Bontenbal et al. 2005	1997-2002	Phase 3 (E-de-esc)	FAC	Seems to have superior OS
Alba et al. 2004 (GEICAM-9903)	1999-2001	Phase 3 (C)	A, then T (Taxotere)		More toxic

Chemotherapy

Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 50 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Docetaxel (Taxotere) 75 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 6 cycles

Regimen variant #3, 50/75 x 8

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy	Comparative Toxicity
Nabholtz et al. 2003 (TAX 306)	NR	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	AC	Seems to have superior TTP
Stemmler et al. 2010 (D4)	2001-2008	Phase 3 (C)	AT (Taxotere); weekly docetaxel	Did not meet secondary endpoint of TTP	Did not meet primary endpoint of hematotoxicity

Chemotherapy

Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 50 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Docetaxel (Taxotere) 75 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 8 cycles

References

TAX 306: Nabholtz JM, Falkson C, Campos D, Szanto J, Martín M, Chan S, Pienkowski T, Zaluski J, Pinter T, Krzakowski M, Vorobiof D, Leonard R, Kennedy I, Azli N, Murawsky M, Riva A, Pouillart P; TAX 306 Study Group. Docetaxel and doxorubicin compared with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide as first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer: results of a randomized, multicenter, phase III trial. J Clin Oncol. 2003 Mar 15;21(6):968-75. link to original article PubMed
GEICAM-9903: Alba E, Martín M, Ramos M, Adrover E, Balil A, Jara C, Barnadas A, Fernández-Aramburo A, Sánchez-Rovira P, Amenedo M, Casado A; GEICAM. Multicenter randomized trial comparing sequential with concomitant administration of doxorubicin and docetaxel as first-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer: a Spanish Breast Cancer Research Group (GEICAM-9903) phase III study. J Clin Oncol. 2004 Jul 1;22(13):2587-93. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
Bontenbal M, Creemers GJ, Braun HJ, de Boer AC, Janssen JT, Leys RB, Ruit JB, Goey SH, van der Velden PC, Kerkhofs LG, Schothorst KL, Schmitz PI, Bokma HJ, Verweij J, Seynaeve C; Dutch Community Setting Trial for the Clinical Trial Group. Phase II to III study comparing doxorubicin and docetaxel with fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide as first-line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer: results of a Dutch Community Setting Trial for the Clinical Trial Group of the Comprehensive Cancer Centre. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Oct 1;23(28):7081-8. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
ERASME 3: Cassier PA, Chabaud S, Trillet-Lenoir V, Peaud PY, Tigaud JD, Cure H, Orfeuvre H, Salles B, Martin C, Jacquin JP, Agostini C, Guastalla JP, Pérol D, Bachelot T. A phase-III trial of doxorubicin and docetaxel versus doxorubicin and paclitaxel in metastatic breast cancer: results of the ERASME 3 study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008 May;109(2):343-50. Epub 2007 Jul 5. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
D4: Stemmler HJ, Harbeck N, Gröll de Rivera I, Vehling Kaiser U, Rauthe G, Abenhardt W, Artmann A, Sommer H, Meerpohl HG, Kiechle M, Heinemann V. Prospective multicenter randomized phase III study of weekly versus standard docetaxel plus doxorubicin (D4) for first-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Oncology. 2010;79(3-4):204-10. Epub 2011 Mar 1. link to original article contains protocol PubMed

Capecitabine monotherapy

back to top

Regimen variant #1, 650 mg/m² PO twice per day, continuous

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Stockler et al. 2011 (ANZ 0001)	2001-2005	Phase 3 (E-de-esc)	1. CMF	Seems to have superior OS
Stockler et al. 2011 (ANZ 0001)	2001-2005	Phase 3 (E-de-esc)	2. Capecitabine; intermittent	Did not meet primary endpoint of quality-adjusted PFS

Chemotherapy

Capecitabine (Xeloda) 650 mg/m² PO twice per day

21-day cycles

Regimen variant #2, 1000 mg/m² PO twice per day, limited duration

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Smorenburg et al. 2014 (OMEGA)	2007-2011	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	PLD	Did not meet primary endpoint of PFS

Chemotherapy

Capecitabine (Xeloda) 1000 mg/m² PO twice per day on days 1 to 14

21-day cycle for 8 cycles

Regimen variant #3, 1000 mg/m² PO twice per day, indefinite

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Bajetta et al. 2005	1999-2003	Phase II
Stockler et al. 2011 (ANZ 0001)	2001-2005	Phase 3 (E-de-esc)	1. CMF	Seems to have superior OS
Stockler et al. 2011 (ANZ 0001)	2001-2005	Phase 3 (E-de-esc)	2. Capecitabine; continuous	Did not meet primary endpoint of quality-adjusted PFS
Robert et al. 2011 (RIBBON-1)	2005-2007	Phase 3 (C)	Capecitabine & Bevacizumab	Inferior PFS

Chemotherapy

Capecitabine (Xeloda) 1000 mg/m² PO twice per day on days 1 to 14

21-day cycles

Regimen variant #4, 1250 mg/m² PO twice per day

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Bajetta et al. 2005	1999-2003	Phase II
Harbeck et al. 2016 (PELICAN)	2006-2010	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin	Inconclusive whether non-inferior TTP

Preceding treatment

JO21095: Docetaxel, with PD

Chemotherapy

Capecitabine (Xeloda) 1250 mg/m² PO twice per day on days 1 to 14

21-day cycles

References

Bajetta E, Procopio G, Celio L, Gattinoni L, Della Torre S, Mariani L, Catena L, Ricotta R, Longarini R, Zilembo N, Buzzoni R. Safety and efficacy of two different doses of capecitabine in the treatment of advanced breast cancer in older women. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Apr 1;23(10):2155-61. Epub 2005 Feb 14. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
RIBBON-1: Robert NJ, Diéras V, Glaspy J, Brufsky AM, Bondarenko I, Lipatov ON, Perez EA, Yardley DA, Chan SY, Zhou X, Phan SC, O'Shaughnessy J. RIBBON-1: randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial of chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab for first-line treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Apr 1;29(10):1252-60. Epub 2011 Mar 7. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00262067
ANZ 0001: Stockler MR, Harvey VJ, Francis PA, Byrne MJ, Ackland SP, Fitzharris B, Van Hazel G, Wilcken NR, Grimison PS, Nowak AK, Gainford MC, Fong A, Paksec L, Sourjina T, Zannino D, Gebski V, Simes RJ, Forbes JF, Coates AS. Capecitabine versus classical cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil as first-line chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Dec 1;29(34):4498-504. Epub 2011 Oct 24. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
OMEGA: Smorenburg CH, de Groot SM, van Leeuwen-Stok AE, Hamaker ME, Wymenga AN, de Graaf H, de Jongh FE, Braun JJ, Los M, Maartense E, van Tinteren H, Nortier JW, Seynaeve C; Dutch Breast Cancer Research Group. A randomized phase III study comparing pegylated liposomal doxorubicin with capecitabine as first-line chemotherapy in elderly patients with metastatic breast cancer: results of the OMEGA study of the Dutch Breast Cancer Research Group BOOG. Ann Oncol. 2014 Mar;25(3):599-605. Epub 2014 Feb 6. link to original article link to PMC article contains protocol PubMed ISRCTN11114726
PELICAN: Harbeck N, Saupe S, Jäger E, Schmidt M, Kreienberg R, Müller L, Otremba BJ, Waldenmaier D, Dorn J, Warm M, Scholz M, Untch M, de Wit M, Barinoff J, Lück HJ, Harter P, Augustin D, Harnett P, Beckmann MW, Al-Batran SE; PELICAN Investigators. A randomized phase III study evaluating pegylated liposomal doxorubicin versus capecitabine as first-line therapy for metastatic breast cancer: results of the PELICAN study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017 Jan;161(1):63-72. Epub 2016 Oct 31. link to original article link to PMC article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00266799
CONTESSA: NCT03326674

Capecitabine & Bevacizumab

back to top

Regimen

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Robert et al. 2011 (RIBBON-1)	2005-2007	Phase 3 (E-esc)	Capecitabine	Superior PFS (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56-0.84)
Lang et al. 2013 (TURANDOT)	2008-2010	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab	Non-inferior OS¹
Welt et al. 2016 (CARIN)	2009-2012	Phase 3 (C)	Capecitabine, Vinorelbine, Bevacizumab	Might have inferior PFS

¹Reported efficacy for TURANDOT is based on the 2016 update.

Chemotherapy

Capecitabine (Xeloda) 1000 mg/m² PO twice per day on days 1 to 14

Targeted therapy

Bevacizumab (Avastin) 15 mg/kg IV once on day 1

21-day cycles

References

RIBBON-1: Robert NJ, Diéras V, Glaspy J, Brufsky AM, Bondarenko I, Lipatov ON, Perez EA, Yardley DA, Chan SY, Zhou X, Phan SC, O'Shaughnessy J. RIBBON-1: randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial of chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab for first-line treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Apr 1;29(10):1252-60. Epub 2011 Mar 7. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00262067
TURANDOT: Lang I, Brodowicz T, Ryvo L, Kahan Z, Greil R, Beslija S, Stemmer SM, Kaufman B, Zvirbule Z, Steger GG, Melichar B, Pienkowski T, Sirbu D, Messinger D, Zielinski C; Central European Cooperative Oncology Group. Bevacizumab plus paclitaxel versus bevacizumab plus capecitabine as first-line treatment for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: interim efficacy results of the randomised, open-label, non-inferiority, phase 3 TURANDOT trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013 Feb;14(2):125-33. Epub 2013 Jan 10. link to original article PubMed NCT00600340
1. Update: Zielinski C, Láng I, Inbar M, Kahán Z, Greil R, Beslija S, Stemmer SM, Zvirbule Z, Steger GG, Melichar B, Pienkowski T, Sirbu D, Petruzelka L, Eniu A, Nisenbaum B, Dank M, Anghel R, Messinger D, Brodowicz T; TURANDOT investigators. Bevacizumab plus paclitaxel versus bevacizumab plus capecitabine as first-line treatment for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (TURANDOT): primary endpoint results of a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016 Sep;17(9):1230-9. Epub 2016 Aug 5. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
CARIN: Welt A, Marschner N, Lerchenmueller C, Decker T, Steffens CC, Koehler A, Depenbusch R, Busies S, Hegewisch-Becker S. Capecitabine and bevacizumab with or without vinorelbine in first-line treatment of HER2/neu-negative metastatic or locally advanced breast cancer: final efficacy and safety data of the randomised, open-label superiority phase 3 CARIN trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016 Feb;156(1):97-107. link to original article link to PMC article PubMed NCT00868634

Capecitabine & Paclitaxel

back to top

TX: Taxol (Paclitaxel), Xeloda (Capecitabine)

Regimen

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence
Blum et al. 2006	2003	Phase II

Chemotherapy

Capecitabine (Xeloda) 825 mg/m² (rounded to nearest 500 mg) PO twice per day on days 1 to 14
Paclitaxel (Taxol) 80 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8

21-day cycles

References

Blum JL, Dees EC, Chacko A, Doane L, Ethirajan S, Hopkins J, McMahon R, Merten S, Negron A, Neubauer M, Ilegbodu D, Boehm KA, Asmar L, O'Shaughnessy JA. Phase II trial of capecitabine and weekly paclitaxel as first-line therapy for metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006 Sep 20;24(27):4384-90. Epub 2006 Aug 22. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed

Capecitabine & Paclitaxel, nanoparticle albumin-bound

back to top

Regimen

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence
Schwartzberg et al. 2011	NR	Phase II

Chemotherapy

Capecitabine (Xeloda) 825 mg/m² (rounded to nearest 500 mg) PO twice per day on days 1 to 15
Paclitaxel, nanoparticle albumin-bound (Abraxane) 125 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8

21-day cycles

References

Schwartzberg LS, Arena FP, Mintzer DM, Epperson AL, Walker MS. Phase II multicenter trial of albumin-bound paclitaxel and capecitabine in first-line treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer. 2012 Apr;12(2):87-93. Epub 2011 Dec 6. link to original article contains protocol PubMed

CMF

back to top

CMF: Cyclophosphamide, Methotrexate, Fluorouracil

Regimen variant #1, 600/40/600

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Tannock et al. 1988	1981-1986	Phase 3 (C)	CMF; lower-dose	Might have superior OS
Ingle et al. 1994 (NCCTG 87-32-52)	1987-1991	Randomized (C)	DES-CEF	Might have inferior ORR

Chemotherapy

Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Methotrexate (MTX) 40 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Fluorouracil (5-FU) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycles

Regimen variant #2, 1400/80/1000

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Aisner et al. 1987	1976-1980	Phase 3 (C)	1. CAF	Seems to have inferior OS
Aisner et al. 1987	1976-1980	Phase 3 (C)	2. CAFVP	Inferior ORR

Chemotherapy

Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 100 mg/m² PO once per day on days 1 to 14
Methotrexate (MTX) 40 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8
Fluorouracil (5-FU) 500 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8

28-day cycles

Regimen variant #3, 1400/60/800

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Canellos et al. 1976	NR	Phase 3 (E-esc)	Melphalan	Seems to have superior OS

Note: this was the dose used for patients older than 60 in the revised protocol of Canellos et al. 1976.

Chemotherapy

Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 100 mg/m² PO once per day on days 1 to 14
Methotrexate (MTX) 30 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8
Fluorouracil (5-FU) 400 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8

28-day cycles

Regimen variant #4, 1400/80/1200

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Brambilla et al. 1976	1973-1974	Randomized (C)	AV	Did not meet primary endpoint of ORR
Canellos et al. 1976	NR	Phase 3 (E-esc)	Melphalan	Seems to have superior OS
Bull et al. 1978	NR	Phase 3 (C)	CAF	Might have inferior ORR
Tormey et al. 1982 (ECOG E2173)	1973-1974	Randomized (C)	1. AV 2. CMFP	Seems to have inferior OS
Viladiu et al. 1985	1978-1981	Randomized (C)	1. CMFT 2. CMF & MPA	Seems to have inferior ORR
Engelsman et al. 1991 (EORTC 10808)	1981-1984	Phase 3 (C)	CMF; 600/40/600 (IV)	Seems to have superior OS
Cocconi et al. 1990	1981-1985	Randomized (C)	CMF x 6, then intensification	Did not meet endpoints of TTP/OS
Yosef et al. 1993	1983-1987	Randomized (C)	SMF	Did not meet endpoints of TTF/OS
Cocconi et al. 1991	1985-1988	Randomized (C)	PE	Might have inferior ORR
Ackland et al. 2001 (HEPI 013)	1990-1992	Phase 3 (C)	CEF	Inferior TTP
Stadtmauer et al. 2000	1990-1997	Phase 3 (C)	CMF x 4-6, then HDT	Did not meet primary endpoint of OS
von Minckwitz et al. 2005	1996-2001	Phase 3 (C)	BMF	Inferior TTP
Stockler et al. 2011 (ANZ 0001)	2001-2005	Phase 3 (C)	1. Capecitabine; continuous 2. Capecitabine; intermittent	Seems to have inferior OS

Note: this was the dose used for patients younger than 60 in the revised protocol of Canellos et al. 1976.

Chemotherapy

Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 100 mg/m² PO once per day on days 1 to 14
Methotrexate (MTX) 40 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8
Fluorouracil (5-FU) 600 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8

28-day cycles

Regimen variant #5, 1400/120/1200

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Canellos et al. 1976	NR	Phase 3 (E-esc)	Melphalan	Seems to have superior OS

Note: this was the dose used for patients in the original protocol of Canellos et al. 1976 and was deemed too myelotoxic.

Chemotherapy

Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 100 mg/m² PO once per day on days 1 to 14
Methotrexate (MTX) 60 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8
Fluorouracil (5-FU) 600 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8

28-day cycles

References

Brambilla C, De Lena M, Rossi A, Valagussa P, Bonadonna G. Response and survival in advanced breast cancer after two non-cross-resistant combinations. Br Med J. 1976 Apr 3;1(6013):801-4. link to original article link to PMC article PubMed
Canellos GP, Pocock SJ, Taylor SG 3rd, Sears ME, Klaasen DJ, Band PR; ECOG. Combination chemotherapy for metastatic breast carcinoma: prospective comparison of multiple drug therapy with L-phenylalanine mustard. Cancer. 1976 Nov;38(5):1882-6. link to original article PubMed
Bull JM, Tormey DC, Li SH, Carbone PP, Falkson G, Blom J, Perlin E, Simon R. A randomized comparative trial of adriamycin versus methotrexate in combination drug therapy. Cancer. 1978 May;41(5):1649-57. link to original article PubMed
ECOG E2173: Tormey DC, Gelman R, Band PR, Sears M, Rosenthal SN, DeWys W, Perlia C, Rice MA. Comparison of induction chemotherapies for metastatic breast cancer: an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Trial. Cancer. 1982 Oct 1;50(7):1235-44. link to original article PubMed
Viladiu P, Alonso MC, Avella A, Beltrán M, Borrás J, Ojeda B, Bosch FX. Chemotherapy versus chemotherapy plus hormonotherapy in postmenopausal advanced breast cancer patients: a randomized trial. Cancer. 1985 Dec 15;56(12):2745-50. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
Aisner J, Weinberg V, Perloff M, Weiss R, Perry M, Korzun A, Ginsberg S, Holland JF; CALGB. Chemotherapy versus chemoimmunotherapy (CAF v CAFVP v CMF each +/- MER) for metastatic carcinoma of the breast: a CALGB study. J Clin Oncol. 1987 Oct;5(10):1523-33. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
Tannock IF, Boyd NF, DeBoer G, Erlichman C, Fine S, Larocque G, Mayers C, Perrault D, Sutherland H. A randomized trial of two dose levels of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil chemotherapy for patients with metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1988 Sep;6(9):1377-87. link to original article PubMed
Cocconi G, Bisagni G, Bacchi M, Buzzi F, Canaletti R, Carpi A, Ceci G, Colozza A, De Lisi V, Lottici R, Passalacqua R, Peracchia G; GOIRC. A comparison of continuation versus late intensification followed by discontinuation of chemotherapy in advanced breast cancer: a prospective randomized trial of the Italian Oncology Group for Clinical Research (GOIRC). Ann Oncol. 1990;1(1):36-44. link to original article PubMed
EORTC 10808: Engelsman E, Klijn JC, Rubens RD, Wildiers J, Beex LV, Nooij MA, Rotmensz N, Sylvester R. "Classical" CMF versus a 3-weekly intravenous CMF schedule in postmenopausal patients with advanced breast cancer: an EORTC Breast Cancer Co-operative Group Phase III Trial (10808). Eur J Cancer. 1991;27(8):966-70. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
Cocconi G, Bisagni G, Bacchi M, Boni C, Bartolucci R, Ceci G, Colozza MA, De Lisi V, Lottici R, Mosconi AM, Passalacqua R, Tonato M; Italian Oncology Group for Clinical Research. Cisplatin and etoposide as first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast carcinoma: a prospective randomized trial of the Italian Oncology Group for Clinical Research. J Clin Oncol. 1991 Apr;9(4):664-9. link to original article PubMed
Yosef H, Slater A, Keen CW, Bunting JS, Hope-Stone H, Parmar H, Roberts JT, Termander B, Nilsson B. Prednimustine (Sterecyt) versus cyclophosphamide both in combination with methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil in the treatment of advanced breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 1993;29A(8):1100-5. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
NCCTG 87-32-52: Ingle JN, Foley JF, Mailliard JA, Krook JE, Hartmann LC, Jung SH, Veeder MH, Gesme DH Jr, Hatfield AK, Goldberg RM. Randomized trial of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and 5-fluorouracil with or without estrogenic recruitment in women with metastatic breast cancer. Cancer. 1994 May 1;73(9):2337-43. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
Stadtmauer EA, O'Neill A, Goldstein LJ, Crilley PA, Mangan KF, Ingle JN, Brodsky I, Martino S, Lazarus HM, Erban JK, Sickles C, Glick JH; Philadelphia Bone Marrow Transplant Group. Conventional-dose chemotherapy compared with high-dose chemotherapy plus autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation for metastatic breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2000 Apr 13;342(15):1069-76. link to original article PubMed
HEPI 013: Ackland SP, Anton A, Breitbach GP, Colajori E, Tursi JM, Delfino C, Efremidis A, Ezzat A, Fittipaldo A, Kolaric K, Lopez M, Viaro D; HEPI 013 study group. Dose-intensive epirubicin-based chemotherapy is superior to an intensive intravenous cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil regimen in metastatic breast cancer: a randomized multinational study. J Clin Oncol. 2001 Feb 15;19(4):943-53. link to original article PubMed
von Minckwitz G, Chernozemsky I, Sirakova L, Chilingirov P, Souchon R, Marschner N, Kleeberg U, Tsekov C, Fritze D, Thomssen C, Stuart N, Vermorken JB, Loibl S, Merkle Kh, Kaufmann M. Bendamustine prolongs progression-free survival in metastatic breast cancer (MBC): a phase III prospective, randomized, multicenter trial of bendamustine hydrochloride, methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil (BMF) versus cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil (CMF) as first-line treatment of MBC. Anticancer Drugs. 2005 Sep;16(8):871-7. link to original article PubMed
ANZ 0001: Stockler MR, Harvey VJ, Francis PA, Byrne MJ, Ackland SP, Fitzharris B, Van Hazel G, Wilcken NR, Grimison PS, Nowak AK, Gainford MC, Fong A, Paksec L, Sourjina T, Zannino D, Gebski V, Simes RJ, Forbes JF, Coates AS. Capecitabine versus classical cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil as first-line chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Dec 1;29(34):4498-504. Epub 2011 Oct 24. link to original article PubMed

CMFT

back to top

CMFT: Cyclophosphamide, Methotrexate, Fluorouracil, Tamoxifen

Regimen

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Cocconi et al. 1983	NR	Randomized (E-esc)	CMF	Might have superior TTF
Viladiu et al. 1985	1978-1981	Randomized (E-esc)	1. CMF 2. CMF & MPA	Seems to have superior ORR

Chemotherapy

Endocrine therapy

Tamoxifen (Nolvadex)

References

Cocconi G, De Lisi V, Boni C, Mori P, Malacarne P, Amadori D, Giovanelli E. Chemotherapy versus combination of chemotherapy and endocrine therapy in advanced breast cancer: a prospective randomized study. Cancer. 1983 Feb 15;51(4):581-8. link to original article PubMed
Viladiu P, Alonso MC, Avella A, Beltrán M, Borrás J, Ojeda B, Bosch FX. Chemotherapy versus chemotherapy plus hormonotherapy in postmenopausal advanced breast cancer patients: a randomized trial. Cancer. 1985 Dec 15;56(12):2745-50. link to original article PubMed

Docetaxel & Epirubicin (DE)

back to top

DE: Docetaxel & Epirubicin
ED: Epirubicin & Docetaxel
ET: Epirubicin & Taxotere (Docetaxel)

Regimen variant #1, 8 cycles

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Bonneterre et al. 2004	1998-2000	Randomized Phase II (E-de-esc)	FEC	Superior ORR
Blohmer et al. 2010	2000-2003	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	EC	Did not meet primary endpoint of ORR

Chemotherapy

Docetaxel (Taxotere) 75 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Epirubicin (Ellence) 75 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for up to 8 cycles

Regimen variant #2, indefinite

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Mavroudis et al. 2009 (HORG CT/02.09)	2002-2007	Phase 3 (C)	TX	Did not meet primary endpoint of TTP

Chemotherapy

Docetaxel (Taxotere) 75 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Epirubicin (Ellence) 75 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycles

References

Bonneterre J, Dieras V, Tubiana-Hulin M, Bougnoux P, Bonneterre ME, Delozier T, Mayer F, Culine S, Dohoulou N, Bendahmane B. Phase II multicentre randomised study of docetaxel plus epirubicin vs 5-fluorouracil plus epirubicin and cyclophosphamide in metastatic breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2004 Oct 18;91(8):1466-71. link to original article link to PMC article contains protocol PubMed
HORG CT/02.09: Mavroudis D, Papakotoulas P, Ardavanis A, Syrigos K, Kakolyris S, Ziras N, Kouroussis C, Malamos N, Polyzos A, Christophyllakis C, Kentepozidis N, Georgoulias V; Hellenic Oncology Research Group. Randomized phase III trial comparing docetaxel plus epirubicin versus docetaxel plus capecitabine as first-line treatment in women with advanced breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2010 Jan;21(1):48-54. Epub 2009 Nov 11. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00429871
Blohmer JU, Schmid P, Hilfrich J, Friese K, Kleine-Tebbe A, Koelbl H, Sommer H, Morack G, Wischnewsky MB, Lichtenegger W, Kuemmel S. Epirubicin and cyclophosphamide versus epirubicin and docetaxel as first-line therapy for women with metastatic breast cancer: final results of a randomised phase III trial. Ann Oncol. 2010 Jul;21(7):1430-5. Epub 2010 Jan 20. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed

Docetaxel monotherapy

back to top

D: Docetaxel
T: Taxotere (Docetaxel)

Regimen variant #1, 30 mg/m² 3 weeks out of 4

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy	Comparative Toxicity
Stemmler et al. 2011 (D2)	2001-2008	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	Docetaxel; q3wk	Seems to have inferior ORR	Superior hematotoxicity

Chemotherapy

Docetaxel (Taxotere) 30 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1, 8, 15

28-day cycles

Regimen variant #2, 40 mg/m² 3 weeks out of 4

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy	Comparative Toxicity
Rivera et al. 2008	2001-2004	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	Docetaxel; q3wk	Did not meet primary endpoint of ORR	Superior toxicity

Chemotherapy

Docetaxel (Taxotere) as follows:
- Cycle 1: 35 mg/m² IV over 30 minutes once per day on days 1, 8, 15
- Cycle 2 onwards: 40 mg/m² IV over 30 minutes once per day on days 1, 8, 15

28-day cycles

Regimen variant #3, 40 mg/m² 6 weeks out of 8

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence
Burstein et al. 2000	1998	Phase II

Chemotherapy

Docetaxel (Taxotere) 40 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1, 8, 15, 22, 29, 36

8-week cycles

Regimen variant #4, 60 mg/m² q3wk

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy	Comparative Toxicity
Katsumata et al. 2009 (JCOG9802)	1999-2003	Phase 3 (E-de-esc)	1. AC 2. AC/D	Did not meet primary endpoint of TTF
Takashima et al. 2015 (SELECT BC)	2006-2010	Phase 3 (C)	S-1	Seems to have non-inferior OS	Inferior EQ-5D score

Chemotherapy

Docetaxel (Taxotere) 60 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for up to 6 cycles

Regimen variant #5, 60 mg/m² q4wk

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy	Comparative Toxicity
Takashima et al. 2015 (SELECT BC)	2006-2010	Phase 3 (C)	S-1	Seems to have non-inferior OS	Inferior EQ-5D score

Chemotherapy

Docetaxel (Taxotere) 60 mg/m² IV once on day 1

28-day cycles

Regimen variant #6, 75 mg/m² q3wk

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy	Comparative Toxicity
Stemmler et al. 2011 (D2)	2001-2008	Phase 3 (C)	Docetaxel; weekly	Seems to have superior ORR	Inferior hematotoxicity
Sparano et al. 2009 (DOXIL-BCA-3001)	2004-2006	Phase 3 (C)	Docetaxel & PLD	Inferior TTP	Less toxic
Robert et al. 2011 (RIBBON-1)	2005-2007	Phase 3 (C)	Docetaxel & Bevacizumab	Inferior PFS
Takashima et al. 2015 (SELECT BC)	2006-2010	Phase 3 (C)	S-1	Seems to have non-inferior OS	Inferior EQ-5D score
Mackey et al. 2014 (ROSE/TRIO-12)	2008-2011	Phase 3 (C)	Docetaxel & Ramucirumab	Might have inferior PFS

Chemotherapy

Docetaxel (Taxotere) 75 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycles

Regimen variant #7, 75 mg/m² q4wk

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy	Comparative Toxicity
Takashima et al. 2015 (SELECT BC)	2006-2010	Phase 3 (C)	S-1	Seems to have non-inferior OS	Inferior EQ-5D score

Chemotherapy

Docetaxel (Taxotere) 75 mg/m² IV once on day 1

28-day cycles

Regimen variant #8, 100 mg/m² x 6

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Pacilio et al. 2006	2000-2003	Phase 3 (C)	Docetaxel & Epirubicin	Did not meet primary endpoint of ORR

Chemotherapy

Docetaxel (Taxotere) 100 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 6 cycles

Regimen variant #9, 100 mg/m² x 8

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Crump et al. 2007 (NCIC-CTG MA.16)	1997-2000	Phase 3 (C)	1. FAC x 4, then HDCT with auto HSCT 2. FEC x 4, then HDCT with auto HSCT 3. Paclitaxel x 4, , then HDCT with auto HSCT 4. Docetaxel x 4, then HDCT with auto HSCT	Did not meet primary endpoint of OS

Chemotherapy

Docetaxel (Taxotere) 100 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 8 cycles

Regimen variant #10, 100 mg/m² x 9

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Miles et al. 2010 (AVADO)	2006-2007	Phase 3 (C)	1. Docetaxel & Bevacizumab; 100/7.5	Did not meet primary endpoint of PFS
Miles et al. 2010 (AVADO)	2006-2007	Phase 3 (C)	2. Docetaxel & Bevacizumab; 100/15	Inferior PFS

Chemotherapy

Docetaxel (Taxotere) 100 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for up to 9 cycles

Regimen variant #11, 100 mg/m², indefinite

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy	Comparative Toxicity
Trudeau et al. 1996	1992-1993	Phase II
Rivera et al. 2008	2001-2004	Phase 3 (C)	Docetaxel; weekly	Did not meet primary endpoint of ORR	Inferior toxicity
Nielsen et al. 2011	2001-2005	Phase 3 (C)	Docetaxel & Gemcitabine	Might have inferior TTP
Joensuu et al. 2009 (B9E-MC-S241)	2002-2006	Phase 3 (C)	D/G	Did not meet primary endpoint of TTF	More toxic
Gradishar et al. 2009	2005-2006	Randomized Phase II (C)	1. nab-Paclitaxel; higher-dose weekly 2. nab-Paclitaxel; lower-dose weekly 3. nab-Paclitaxel; q3wk	Did not meet primary endpoint of ORR
Robert et al. 2011 (RIBBON-1)	2005-2007	Phase 3 (C)	Docetaxel & Bevacizumab	Inferior PFS
Bergh et al. 2012 (SUN 1064)	2007-2009	Phase 3 (C)	Docetaxel & Sunitinib	Did not meet primary endpoint of PFS

Chemotherapy

Docetaxel (Taxotere) 100 mg/m² IV over 60 minutes once on day 1
- Note: Rivera et al. 2008 gave 75 mg/m² in cycle 1, with escalation to 100 mg/m² depending on toxicity

21-day cycles

References

Trudeau ME, Eisenhauer EA, Higgins BP, Letendre F, Lofters WS, Norris BD, Vandenberg TA, Delorme F, Muldal AM; National Cancer Institute of Canada-Clinical Trials Group. Docetaxel in patients with metastatic breast cancer: a phase II study of the National Cancer Institute of Canada-Clinical Trials Group. J Clin Oncol. 1996 Feb;14(2):422-8. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
Review: Burris HA 3rd. Single-agent docetaxel (Taxotere) in randomized phase III trials. Semin Oncol. 1999 Jun;26(3 Suppl 9):1-6. PubMed
Burstein HJ, Manola J, Younger J, Parker LM, Bunnell CA, Scheib R, Matulonis UA, Garber JE, Clarke KD, Shulman LN, Winer EP. Docetaxel administered on a weekly basis for metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2000 Mar;18(6):1212-9. link to original article PubMed content property of HemOnc.org
Pacilio C, Morabito A, Nuzzo F, Gravina A, Labonia V, Landi G, Rossi E, De Maio E, Di Maio M, D'Aiuto G, Botti G, Normanno N, Chiodini P, Gallo C, Perrone F, de Matteis A; NCI-Naples Breast Cancer Group. Is epirubicin effective in first-line chemotherapy of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) after an epirubicin-containing adjuvant treatment? A single centre phase III trial. Br J Cancer. 2006 May 8;94(9):1233-6. link to original article link to PMC article contains verified protocol PubMed
NCIC-CTG MA.16: Crump M, Gluck S, Tu D, Stewart D, Levine M, Kirkbride P, Dancey J, O'Reilly S, Shore T, Couban S, Girouard C, Marlin S, Shepherd L, Pritchard KI. Randomized trial of high-dose chemotherapy with autologous peripheral-blood stem-cell support compared with standard-dose chemotherapy in women with metastatic breast cancer: NCIC MA.16. J Clin Oncol. 2008 Jan 1;26(1):37-43. Epub 2007 Nov 19. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00003032
Rivera E, Mejia JA, Arun BK, Adinin RB, Walters RS, Brewster A, Broglio KR, Yin G, Esmaeli B, Hortobagyi GN, Valero V. Phase 3 study comparing the use of docetaxel on an every-3-week versus weekly schedule in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Cancer. 2008 Apr 1;112(7):1455-61. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
JCOG9802: Katsumata N, Watanabe T, Minami H, Aogi K, Tabei T, Sano M, Masuda N, Andoh J, Ikeda T, Shibata T, Takashima S. Phase III trial of doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide (AC), docetaxel, and alternating AC and docetaxel as front-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer: Japan Clinical Oncology Group trial (JCOG9802). Ann Oncol. 2009 Jul;20(7):1210-5. Epub 2009 Mar 2. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
Gradishar WJ, Krasnojon D, Cheporov S, Makhson AN, Manikhas GM, Clawson A, Bhar P. Significantly longer progression-free survival with nab-paclitaxel compared with docetaxel as first-line therapy for metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009 Aug 1;27(22):3611-9. Epub 2009 May 26. Erratum in: J Clin Oncol. 2011 Jul 1;29(19):2739. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
DOXIL-BCA-3001: Sparano JA, Makhson AN, Semiglazov VF, Tjulandin SA, Balashova OI, Bondarenko IN, Bogdanova NV, Manikhas GM, Oliynychenko GP, Chatikhine VA, Zhuang SH, Xiu L, Yuan Z, Rackoff WR. Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin plus docetaxel significantly improves time to progression without additive cardiotoxicity compared with docetaxel monotherapy in patients with advanced breast cancer previously treated with neoadjuvant-adjuvant anthracycline therapy: results from a randomized phase III study. J Clin Oncol. 2009 Sep 20;27(27):4522-9. Epub 2009 Aug 17. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00091442
B9E-MC-S241: Joensuu H, Sailas L, Alanko T, Sunela K, Huuhtanen R, Utriainen M, Kokko R, Bono P, Wigren T, Pyrhönen S, Turpeenniemi-Hujanen T, Asola R, Leinonen M, Hahka-Kemppinen M, Kellokumpu-Lehtinen P. Docetaxel versus docetaxel alternating with gemcitabine as treatments of advanced breast cancer: final analysis of a randomised trial. Ann Oncol. 2010 May;21(5):968-73. Epub 2009 Oct 9. link to original article link to PMC article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00191243
AVADO: Miles DW, Chan A, Dirix LY, Cortés J, Pivot X, Tomczak P, Delozier T, Sohn JH, Provencher L, Puglisi F, Harbeck N, Steger GG, Schneeweiss A, Wardley AM, Chlistalla A, Romieu G. Phase III study of bevacizumab plus docetaxel compared with placebo plus docetaxel for the first-line treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010 Jul 10;28(20):3239-47. Epub 2010 May 24. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00333775
D2: Stemmler HJ, Harbeck N, Gröll de Rivera I, Vehling Kaiser U, Rauthe G, Abenhardt W, Artmann A, Sommer H, Meerpohl HG, Kiechle M, Heinemann V. Prospective multicenter randomized phase III study of weekly versus standard docetaxel (D2) for first-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Oncology. 2010;79(3-4):197-203. Epub 2011 Mar 1. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
RIBBON-1: Robert NJ, Diéras V, Glaspy J, Brufsky AM, Bondarenko I, Lipatov ON, Perez EA, Yardley DA, Chan SY, Zhou X, Phan SC, O'Shaughnessy J. RIBBON-1: randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial of chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab for first-line treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Apr 1;29(10):1252-60. Epub 2011 Mar 7. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00262067
Nielsen DL, Bjerre KD, Jakobsen EH, Cold S, Stenbygaard L, Sørensen PG, Kamby C, Møller S, Jørgensen CL, Andersson M; Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group. Gemcitabine plus docetaxel versus docetaxel in patients with predominantly human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer: a randomized, phase III study by the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Dec 20;29(36):4748-54. Epub 2011 Nov 14. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
SUN 1064: Bergh J, Bondarenko IM, Lichinitser MR, Liljegren A, Greil R, Voytko NL, Makhson AN, Cortes J, Lortholary A, Bischoff J, Chan A, Delaloge S, Huang X, Kern KA, Giorgetti C. First-line treatment of advanced breast cancer with sunitinib in combination with docetaxel versus docetaxel alone: results of a prospective, randomized phase III study. J Clin Oncol. 2012 Mar 20;30(9):921-9. Epub 2012 Feb 13. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00393939
ROSE/TRIO-12: Mackey JR, Ramos-Vazquez M, Lipatov O, McCarthy N, Krasnozhon D, Semiglazov V, Manikhas A, Gelmon KA, Konecny GE, Webster M, Hegg R, Verma S, Gorbunova V, Abi Gerges D, Thireau F, Fung H, Simms L, Buyse M, Ibrahim A, Martín M. Primary results of ROSE/TRIO-12, a randomized placebo-controlled phase III trial evaluating the addition of ramucirumab to first-line docetaxel chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015 Jan 10;33(2):141-8. Epub 2014 Sep 2. link to original article contains protocol PubMed NCT00703326
SELECT BC: Takashima T, Mukai H, Hara F, Matsubara N, Saito T, Takano T, Park Y, Toyama T, Hozumi Y, Tsurutani J, Imoto S, Watanabe T, Sagara Y, Nishimura R, Shimozuma K, Ohashi Y; SELECT BC Study Group. Taxanes versus S-1 as the first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (SELECT BC): an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016 Jan;17(1):90-8. Epub 2015 Nov 27. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed UMIN C000000416
1. HRQoL analysis: Shiroiwa T, Fukuda T, Shimozuma K, Mouri M, Hagiwara Y, Doihara H, Akabane H, Kashiwaba M, Watanabe T, Ohashi Y, Mukai H. Long-term health status as measured by EQ-5D among patients with metastatic breast cancer: comparison of first-line oral S-1 and taxane therapies in the randomized phase III SELECT BC trial. Qual Life Res. 2017 Feb;26(2):445-453. Epub 2016 Aug 12. link to original article link to PMC article PubMed

Docetaxel & Bevacizumab

back to top

Regimen variant #1, 75/15, indefinite

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Robert et al. 2011 (RIBBON-1)	2005-2007	Phase 3 (E-esc)	Docetaxel	Superior PFS (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.52-0.80)
Lück et al. 2014 (TABEA)	2009-2012	Phase 3 (C)	TBX	Did not meet primary endpoint of PFS
Trédan et al. 2016 (GINECO-BR107)	2010-2013	Phase 3 (C)	Docetaxel & Bevacizumab, then Exemestane & Bevacizumab	Did not meet primary endpoint of PFS

Chemotherapy

Docetaxel (Taxotere) 75 mg/m² IV once on day 1

Targeted therapy

Bevacizumab (Avastin) 15 mg/kg IV once on day 1

21-day cycles

Regimen variant #2, 100/15, 9 cycles

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Miles et al. 2010 (AVADO)	2006-2007	Phase 3 (C)	1. Docetaxel	Superior PFS
Miles et al. 2010 (AVADO)	2006-2007	Phase 3 (C)	2. Docetaxel & Bevacizumab; 100/7.5	Not reported

Chemotherapy

Docetaxel (Taxotere) 100 mg/m² IV once on day 1

Targeted therapy

Bevacizumab (Avastin) 15 mg/kg IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for up to 9 cycles

Subsequent treatment

Bevacizumab maintenance

Regimen variant #3, 100/15, indefinite

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Robert et al. 2011 (RIBBON-1)	2005-2007	Phase 3 (E-esc)	Docetaxel	Superior PFS (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.52-0.80)

Chemotherapy

Docetaxel (Taxotere) 100 mg/m² IV once on day 1

Targeted therapy

Bevacizumab (Avastin) 15 mg/kg IV once on day 1

21-day cycles

References

AVADO: Miles DW, Chan A, Dirix LY, Cortés J, Pivot X, Tomczak P, Delozier T, Sohn JH, Provencher L, Puglisi F, Harbeck N, Steger GG, Schneeweiss A, Wardley AM, Chlistalla A, Romieu G. Phase III study of bevacizumab plus docetaxel compared with placebo plus docetaxel for the first-line treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010 Jul 10;28(20):3239-47. Epub 2010 May 24. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00333775
RIBBON-1: Robert NJ, Diéras V, Glaspy J, Brufsky AM, Bondarenko I, Lipatov ON, Perez EA, Yardley DA, Chan SY, Zhou X, Phan SC, O'Shaughnessy J. RIBBON-1: randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial of chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab for first-line treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Apr 1;29(10):1252-60. Epub 2011 Mar 7. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00262067
TABEA: Lück HJ, Lübbe K, Reinisch M, Maass N, Feisel-Schwickardi G, Tomé O, Janni W, Aydogdu M, Neunhöffer T, Ober A, Aktas B, Park-Simon TW, Schumacher C, Höffkes HG, Illmer T, Wagner H, Mehta K, von Minckwitz G, Nekljudova V, Loibl S. Phase III study on efficacy of taxanes plus bevacizumab with or without capecitabine as first-line chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015 Jan;149(1):141-9. Epub 2014 Dec 18. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
GINECO-BR107: Trédan O, Follana P, Moullet I, Cropet C, Trager-Maury S, Dauba J, Lavau-Denes S, Diéras V, Béal-Ardisson D, Gouttebel M, Orfeuvre H, Stefani L, Jouannaud C, Bürki F, Petit T, Guardiola E, Becuwe C, Blot E, Pujade-Lauraine E, Bachelot T. A phase III trial of exemestane plus bevacizumab maintenance therapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer after first-line taxane and bevacizumab: a GINECO group study. Ann Oncol. 2016 Jun;27(6):1020-9. Epub 2016 Feb 24. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT01303679

Docetaxel & Gemcitabine

back to top

GD: Gemcitabine & Docetaxel
GDoc: Gemcitabine & Docetaxel

Regimen

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Nielsen et al. 2011	2001-2005	Phase 3 (E-esc)	Docetaxel	Might have superior TTP
Fountzilas et al. 2008	2002-2006	Phase 3 (E-esc)	1. Carboplatin & Paclitaxel	Did not meet primary endpoint of OS
Fountzilas et al. 2008	2002-2006	Phase 3 (E-esc)	2. Paclitaxel; weekly	Seems to have inferior OS
Seidman et al. 2010 (B9E-MC-S273)	2002-2008	Phase 3 (C)	TX	Did not meet primary endpoint of TTP
Del Mastro et al. 2013 (B9E-IT-S376)	2005-2010	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	1. GD; weekly 2. GT; q3wk 3. GT; weekly	Did not meet primary endpoint of TTP

Chemotherapy

Docetaxel (Taxotere) 75 mg/m² IV once on day 1
- Nielsen et al. 2011 gave docetaxel on day 8
Gemcitabine (Gemzar) 1000 mg/m² IV over 30 minutes once per day on days 1 & 8

21-day cycles

Subsequent treatment

B9E-MC-S273, upon progression: Capecitabine

References

Fountzilas G, Dafni U, Dimopoulos MA, Koutras A, Skarlos D, Papakostas P, Gogas H, Bafaloukos D, Kalogera-Fountzila A, Samantas E, Briasoulis E, Pectasides D, Maniadakis N, Matsiakou F, Aravantinos G, Papadimitriou C, Karina M, Christodoulou C, Kosmidis P, Kalofonos HP; Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group. A randomized phase III study comparing three anthracycline-free taxane-based regimens, as first line chemotherapy, in metastatic breast cancer: a Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009 May;115(1):87-99. Epub 2008 May 16. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
B9E-MC-S273: Seidman AD, Brufsky A, Ansari RH, Hart LL, Stein RS, Schwartzberg LS, Stewart JF, Russell CA, Chen SC, Fein LE, De La Cruz Vargas JA, Kim SB, Cavalheiro J, Zhao L, Gill JF, Obasaju CK, Orlando M, Tai DF. Phase III trial of gemcitabine plus docetaxel versus capecitabine plus docetaxel with planned crossover to the alternate single agent in metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2011 May;22(5):1094-101. Epub 2010 Nov 17. link to original article contains protocol PubMed NCT00191438
Nielsen DL, Bjerre KD, Jakobsen EH, Cold S, Stenbygaard L, Sørensen PG, Kamby C, Møller S, Jørgensen CL, Andersson M; Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group. Gemcitabine plus docetaxel versus docetaxel in patients with predominantly human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer: a randomized, phase III study by the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Dec 20;29(36):4748-54. Epub 2011 Nov 14. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
B9E-IT-S376: Del Mastro L, Fabi A, Mansutti M, De Laurentiis M, Durando A, Merlo DF, Bruzzi P, La Torre I, Ceccarelli M, Kazeem G, Marchi P, Boy D, Venturini M, De Placido S, Cognetti F. Randomised phase 3 open-label trial of first-line treatment with gemcitabine in association with docetaxel or paclitaxel in women with metastatic breast cancer: a comparison of different schedules and treatments. BMC Cancer. 2013 Mar 28;13:164. link to original article link to PMC article contains protocol PubMed NCT00236899

Doxorubicin monotherapy

back to top

Regimen variant #1, 20 mg/m² weekly

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Gundersen et al. 1986	1982-1983	Phase 3 (E-de-esc)	VAC	Did not meet endpoint of OS
Gundersen et al. 1990	1984-1986	Phase 3 (C)	Epirubicin	Did not meet endpoints of ORR/OS
Gundersen et al. 1994	1987-1990	Randomized (C)	Doxorubicin & MPA	Might have inferior ORR

Chemotherapy

Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 20 mg/m² IV once on day 1

7-day cycles

Regimen variant #2, 60 mg/m² q3wk

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Gottlieb et al. 1974 (SWG02)	1972	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	1. Lomustine 2. Semustine	Superior OS
Hoogstraten et al. 1976	1972-1974	Phase 3 (C)	CMFVP	Seems to have inferior ORR
Vaughn et al. 1988 (SWOG S8020)	1980-1982	Phase 3 (C)	Doxorubicin & Etoposide	Seems to have inferior TTP
Perez et al. 1991	1985-1988	Phase 3 (C)	Epirubicin	Did not meet endpoints of ORR/OS
Norris et al. 2000 (NCIC-CTG MA.8)	1992-1995	Phase 3 (C)	Doxorubicin & Vinorelbine	Did not meet primary endpoint of OS
Sledge et al. 2003 (ECOG E1193)	1993-1995	Phase 3 (C)	1. AT (Taxol)	Inferior TTF
Sledge et al. 2003 (ECOG E1193)	1993-1995	Phase 3 (C)	2. Paclitaxel	Did not meet primary endpoint of ORR
O'Brien et al. 2004	1998-2000	Phase 3 (C)	Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin	Seems to have non-inferior PFS

Note: in NCIC-CTG MA.8, this dose was after a mid-protocol amendment. Treatment in NCIC-CTG MA.8 was given until a cumulative dose of 450 mg/m².

Chemotherapy

Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 60 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycles (see note)

Regimen variant #3, 75 mg/m² q3wk

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Paridaens et al. 2000 (EORTC 10923)	1993-1996	Phase 3 (C)	Paclitaxel	Superior PFS

Chemotherapy

Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 75 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 7 cycles

References

SWG02: Gottlieb JA, Rivkin SE, Spigel SC, Hoogstraten B, O'Bryan RM, Delaney FC, Singhakowinta A; SWOG. Proceedings: Superiority of adriamycin over oral nitrosoureas in patients with advanced breast carcinoma: a Southwest Cancer Chemotherapy study Group study. Cancer. 1974 Feb;33(2):519-26. link to original article PubMed
Hoogstraten B, George SL, Samal B, Rivkin SE, Costanzi JJ, Bonnet JD, Thigpen T, Braine H; SWOG. Combination chemotherapy and adriamycin in patients with advanced breast cancer: a Southwest Oncology Group study. Cancer. 1976 Jul;38(1):13-20. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
Gundersen S, Kvinnsland S, Klepp O, Kvaløy S, Lund E, Høst H. Weekly adriamycin versus VAC in advanced breast cancer: a randomized trial. Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol. 1986 Dec;22(12):1431-4. link to original article PubMed
SWOG S8020: Vaughn CB, Green SJ, O'Bryan R, Reed M, Grozea PN, Fletcher WS, Green JB, Metch B, Oishi N. VP-16 + adriamycin vs adriamycin alone in advanced adenocarcinoma of the breast, phase II, a randomized trial: a Southwest Oncology Group Study. Med Pediatr Oncol. 1988;16(5):312-9. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
Gundersen S, Kvinnsland S, Klepp O, Lund E, Høst H; Norwegian Breast Cancer Group. Weekly Adriamycin vs 4-epidoxorubicin every second week in advanced breast cancer: a randomized trial. Eur J Cancer. 1990 Jan;26(1):45-8. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
Perez DJ, Harvey VJ, Robinson BA, Atkinson CH, Dady PJ, Kirk AR, Evans BD, Chapman PJ. A randomized comparison of single-agent doxorubicin and epirubicin as first-line cytotoxic therapy in advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1991 Dec;9(12):2148-52. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
Gundersen S, Hannisdal E, Lundgren S, Wist E; Norwegian Breast Cancer Group. Weekly doxorubicin with or without high-dose medroxyprogesterone acetate in hormone-resistant advanced breast cancer: a randomised study. Eur J Cancer. 1994;30A(12):1775-8. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
EORTC 10923: Paridaens R, Biganzoli L, Bruning P, Klijn JG, Gamucci T, Houston S, Coleman R, Schachter J, Van Vreckem A, Sylvester R, Awada A, Wildiers J, Piccart M. Paclitaxel versus doxorubicin as first-line single-agent chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer: a European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Randomized Study with cross-over. J Clin Oncol. 2000 Feb;18(4):724-33. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
1. HRQoL analysis: Kramer JA, Curran D, Piccart M, de Haes JC, Bruning PF, Klijn JG, Bontenbal M, van Pottelsberghe C, Groenvold M, Paridaens R. Randomised trial of paclitaxel versus doxorubicin as first-line chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer: quality of life evaluation using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the Rotterdam symptom checklist. Eur J Cancer. 2000 Aug;36(12):1488-97. link to original article PubMed
NCIC-CTG MA.8: Norris B, Pritchard KI, James K, Myles J, Bennett K, Marlin S, Skillings J, Findlay B, Vandenberg T, Goss P, Latreille J, Rudinskas L, Lofters W, Trudeau M, Osoba D, Rodgers A. Phase III comparative study of vinorelbine combined with doxorubicin versus doxorubicin alone in disseminated metastatic/recurrent breast cancer: National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group study MA8. J Clin Oncol. 2000 Jun;18(12):2385-94. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
ECOG E1193: Sledge GW, Neuberg D, Bernardo P, Ingle JN, Martino S, Rowinsky EK, Wood WC. Phase III trial of doxorubicin, paclitaxel, and the combination of doxorubicin and paclitaxel as front-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer: an intergroup trial (E1193). J Clin Oncol. 2003 Feb 15;21(4):588-92. link to original article PubMed
O'Brien ME, Wigler N, Inbar M, Rosso R, Grischke E, Santoro A, Catane R, Kieback DG, Tomczak P, Ackland SP, Orlandi F, Mellars L, Alland L, Tendler C; CAELYX Breast Cancer Study Group. Reduced cardiotoxicity and comparable efficacy in a phase III trial of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin HCl (CAELYX/Doxil) versus conventional doxorubicin for first-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2004 Mar;15(3):440-9. link to original article PubMed

Doxorubicin pegylated liposomal monotherapy

back to top

Regimen variant #1, 45 mg/m²

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Smorenburg et al. 2014 (OMEGA)	2007-2011	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	Capecitabine	Did not meet primary endpoint of PFS

Chemotherapy

Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (Doxil) 45 mg/m² IV once on day 1

28-day cycle for 6 cycles

Regimen variant #2, 50 mg/m²

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
O'Brien et al. 2004	1998-2000	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	Doxorubicin	Seems to have non-inferior PFS
Harbeck et al. 2016 (PELICAN)	2006-2010	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	Capecitabine	Inconclusive whether non-inferior TTP

Chemotherapy

Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (Doxil) 50 mg/m² IV over up to 60 minutes once on day 1
- If infusion reactions occurred, infusion could be given over up to 90 minutes

28-day cycles

References

O'Brien ME, Wigler N, Inbar M, Rosso R, Grischke E, Santoro A, Catane R, Kieback DG, Tomczak P, Ackland SP, Orlandi F, Mellars L, Alland L, Tendler C; CAELYX Breast Cancer Study Group. Reduced cardiotoxicity and comparable efficacy in a phase III trial of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin HCl (CAELYX/Doxil) versus conventional doxorubicin for first-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2004 Mar;15(3):440-9. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
OMEGA: Smorenburg CH, de Groot SM, van Leeuwen-Stok AE, Hamaker ME, Wymenga AN, de Graaf H, de Jongh FE, Braun JJ, Los M, Maartense E, van Tinteren H, Nortier JW, Seynaeve C; Dutch Breast Cancer Research Group. A randomized phase III study comparing pegylated liposomal doxorubicin with capecitabine as first-line chemotherapy in elderly patients with metastatic breast cancer: results of the OMEGA study of the Dutch Breast Cancer Research Group BOOG. Ann Oncol. 2014 Mar;25(3):599-605. Epub 2014 Feb 6. link to original article link to PMC article contains protocol PubMed ISRCTN11114726
PELICAN: Harbeck N, Saupe S, Jäger E, Schmidt M, Kreienberg R, Müller L, Otremba BJ, Waldenmaier D, Dorn J, Warm M, Scholz M, Untch M, de Wit M, Barinoff J, Lück HJ, Harter P, Augustin D, Harnett P, Beckmann MW, Al-Batran SE; PELICAN Investigators. A randomized phase III study evaluating pegylated liposomal doxorubicin versus capecitabine as first-line therapy for metastatic breast cancer: results of the PELICAN study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017 Jan;161(1):63-72. Epub 2016 Oct 31. link to original article link to PMC article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00266799

Cyclophosphamide & Epirubicin (EC)

back to top

EC: Epirubicin & Cyclophosphamide

Regimen variant #1, 75/600

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Chan et al. 2004	1996-1997	Phase 3 (C)	MC	Seems to have inferior TTP
Langley et al. 2005 (UKNCRI AB01)	1996-1999	Phase 3 (C)	EP	Did not meet primary endpoint of PFS

Chemotherapy

Epirubicin (Ellence) 75 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for up to 6 to 8 cycles

Regimen variant #2, 90/600

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Blohmer et al. 2010	2000-2003	Phase 3 (C)	ED	Did not meet primary endpoint of ORR

Chemotherapy

Epirubicin (Ellence) 90 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for up to 8 cycles

Regimen variant #3, with range

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Robert et al. 2011 (RIBBON-1)	2005-2007	Phase 3 (C)	EC & Bevacizumab	Inferior PFS

Chemotherapy

Epirubicin (Ellence) 90 to 100 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 500 to 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for up to 8 cycles

References

Chan S, Davidson N, Juozaityte E, Erdkamp F, Pluzanska A, Azarnia N, Lee LW. Phase III trial of liposomal doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide compared with epirubicin and cyclophosphamide as first-line therapy for metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2004 Oct;15(10):1527-34. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
UKNCRI AB01: Langley RE, Carmichael J, Jones AL, Cameron DA, Qian W, Uscinska B, Howell A, Parmar M. Phase III trial of epirubicin plus paclitaxel compared with epirubicin plus cyclophosphamide as first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer: United Kingdom National Cancer Research Institute trial AB01. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Nov 20;23(33):8322-30. link to original article PubMed
Blohmer JU, Schmid P, Hilfrich J, Friese K, Kleine-Tebbe A, Koelbl H, Sommer H, Morack G, Wischnewsky MB, Lichtenegger W, Kuemmel S. Epirubicin and cyclophosphamide versus epirubicin and docetaxel as first-line therapy for women with metastatic breast cancer: final results of a randomised phase III trial. Ann Oncol. 2010 Jul;21(7):1430-5. Epub 2010 Jan 20. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
RIBBON-1: Robert NJ, Diéras V, Glaspy J, Brufsky AM, Bondarenko I, Lipatov ON, Perez EA, Yardley DA, Chan SY, Zhou X, Phan SC, O'Shaughnessy J. RIBBON-1: randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial of chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab for first-line treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Apr 1;29(10):1252-60. Epub 2011 Mar 7. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00262067

Cyclophosphamide & Epirubicin (EC) & Bevacizumab

back to top

EC & Bevacizumab: Epirubicin, Cyclophosphamide, Bevacizumab

Regimen

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Robert et al. 2011 (RIBBON-1)	2005-2007	Phase 3 (E-esc)	EC	Superior PFS (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.52-0.80)

Chemotherapy

Epirubicin (Ellence) 90 to 100 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 500 to 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

Targeted therapy

Bevacizumab (Avastin) 15 mg/kg IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for up to 8 cycles

Subsequent treatment

Bevacizumab maintenance, if no PD

References

RIBBON-1: Robert NJ, Diéras V, Glaspy J, Brufsky AM, Bondarenko I, Lipatov ON, Perez EA, Yardley DA, Chan SY, Zhou X, Phan SC, O'Shaughnessy J. RIBBON-1: randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial of chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab for first-line treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Apr 1;29(10):1252-60. Epub 2011 Mar 7. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00262067

Epirubicin & Paclitaxel (EP)

back to top

EP: Epirubicin & Paclitaxel
ET: Epirubicin & Taxol (Paclitaxel)

Regimen variant #1, 60/175

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Lück et al. 2013	2002-2005	Phase 3 (C)	XP	Inconclusive whether non-inferior PFS

Chemotherapy

Epirubicin (Ellence) 60 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Paclitaxel (Taxol) 175 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for up to 6 cycles

Regimen variant #2, 75/175

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Hatschek et al. 2011 (TEX trial)	2002-2007	Phase 3 (C)	TEX	Did not meet primary endpoint of PFS

Note: the doses of this regimen were individually adjusted after cycle 1; see paper for details.

Chemotherapy

Epirubicin (Ellence) 75 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Paclitaxel (Taxol) 175 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycles

Regimen variant #3, 75/200

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Langley et al. 2005 (UKNCRI AB01)	1996-1999	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	EC	Did not meet primary endpoint of PFS

Chemotherapy

Epirubicin (Ellence) 75 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Paclitaxel (Taxol) 200 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for up to 6 cycles

Regimen variant #4, 80/175

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Fountzilas et al. 2004	1999-2002	Phase 3 (C)	Carboplatin & Paclitaxel (CP)	Did not meet primary endpoint of OS

Chemotherapy

Epirubicin (Ellence) 80 mg/m² IV once on day 1, given second
Paclitaxel (Taxol) 175 mg/m² IV over 3 hours once on day 1, given first

21-day cycle for up to 6 cycles

Regimen variant #5, 90/200

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Conte et al. 2004	1996-2001	Phase 3 (C)	E, then P	Seems to have non-inferior ORR

Chemotherapy

Epirubicin (Ellence) 90 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Paclitaxel (Taxol) 200 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 8 cycles

References

Conte PF, Guarneri V, Bruzzi P, Prochilo T, Salvadori B, Bolognesi A, Aldrighetti D, Venturini M, Rosso R, Mammoliti S, Carnino F, Giannessi P, Costantini M, Moyano A, Baldini E; GONO. Concomitant versus sequential administration of epirubicin and paclitaxel as first-line therapy in metastatic breast carcinoma: results for the Gruppo Oncologico Nord Ovest randomized trial. Cancer. 2004 Aug 15;101(4):704-12. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
Fountzilas G, Kalofonos HP, Dafni U, Papadimitriou C, Bafaloukos D, Papakostas P, Kalogera-Fountzila A, Gogas H, Aravantinos G, Moulopoulos LA, Economopoulos T, Pectasides D, Maniadakis N, Siafaka V, Briasoulis E, Christodoulou C, Tsavdaridis D, Makrantonakis P, Razis E, Kosmidis P, Skarlos D, Dimopoulos MA; Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group. Paclitaxel and epirubicin versus paclitaxel and carboplatin as first-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced breast cancer: a phase III study conducted by the Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group. Ann Oncol. 2004 Oct;15(10):1517-26. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
UKNCRI AB01: Langley RE, Carmichael J, Jones AL, Cameron DA, Qian W, Uscinska B, Howell A, Parmar M. Phase III trial of epirubicin plus paclitaxel compared with epirubicin plus cyclophosphamide as first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer: United Kingdom National Cancer Research Institute trial AB01. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Nov 20;23(33):8322-30. link to original article PubMed
TEX trial: Hatschek T, Carlsson L, Einbeigi Z, Lidbrink E, Linderholm B, Lindh B, Loman N, Malmberg M, Rotstein S, Söderberg M, Sundquist M, Walz TM, Hellström M, Svensson H, Aström G, Brandberg Y, Carstensen J, Fernö M, Bergh J. Individually tailored treatment with epirubicin and paclitaxel with or without capecitabine as first-line chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer: a randomized multicenter trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012 Feb;131(3):939-47. Epub 2011 Nov 18. link to original article contains protocol PubMed NCT01433614
Lück HJ, Du Bois A, Loibl S, Schrader I, Huober J, Heilmann V, Beckmann M, Stähler A, Jackisch C, Hubalek M, Richter B, Stickeler E, Eidtmann H, Thomssen C, Untch M, Wollschläger K, Schuster T, von Minckwitz G; AGO Breast Cancer Study Group. Capecitabine plus paclitaxel versus epirubicin plus paclitaxel as first-line treatment for metastatic breast cancer: efficacy and safety results of a randomized, phase III trial by the AGO Breast Cancer Study Group. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013 Jun;139(3):779-87. Epub 2013 Jun 15. link to original article contains protocol PubMed

Epirubicin monotherapy

back to top

Regimen variant #1, 35 mg/m², 3 out of 4 weeks

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Feher et al. 2005	1996-1999	Phase 3 (C)	Gemcitabine	Superior OS

Chemotherapy

Epirubicin (Ellence) 35 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1, 8, 15

28-day cycles

Regimen variant #2, 40 mg/m²

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Bastholt et al. 1996	1987-1991	Phase 3 (E-de-esc)	1. Epirubicin; 60 mg/m²	Did not meet primary endpoint of TTP
			2. Epirubicin; 90 mg/m²	Inferior TTP
			3. Epirubicin; 135 mg/m²	Did not meet primary endpoint of TTP

Chemotherapy

Epirubicin (Ellence) 40 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycles

Regimen variant #3, 50 mg/m²

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Gundersen et al. 1990	1984-1986	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	Doxorubicin	Did not meet endpoints of ORR/OS

Chemotherapy

Epirubicin (Ellence) 50 mg/m² IV once on day 1

14-day cycles

Regimen variant #4, 60 mg/m²

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Nielsen et al. 1990	1983-1986	Phase 3 (C)	Epirubicin & Vindesine	Did not meet primary endpoint of ORR
Bastholt et al. 1996	1987-1991	Phase 3 (E-de-esc)	1. Epirubicin; 40 mg/m² 2. Epirubicin; 90 mg/m² 3. Epirubicin; 135 mg/m²	Did not meet primary endpoint of TTP

Chemotherapy

Epirubicin (Ellence) 60 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycles

Regimen variant #5, 70 mg/m², 2 out of 4 weeks

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy	Comparative Toxicity
Nielsen et al. 2000	1987-1990	Phase 3 (C)	Cisplatin & Epirubicin	Seems to have inferior TTP	Superior toxicity

Chemotherapy

Epirubicin (Ellence) 70 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8

28-day cycles until maximum dose of epirubicin reached (1000 mg/m²)

Regimen variant #6, 75 mg/m²

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Bonneterre & Hurteloup 1991	NR	Phase 3 (E-de-esc)	FEC; FEC 50	Seems to have inferior ORR
Bonneterre & Hurteloup 1991	NR	Phase 3 (E-de-esc)	FEC; FEC 75	Inferior ORR

Chemotherapy

Epirubicin (Ellence) 75 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycles

Regimen variant #7, 90 mg/m²

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Perez et al. 1991	1985-1988	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	Doxorubicin	Did not meet endpoints of ORR/OS
Bastholt et al. 1996	1987-1991	Phase 3 (C)	1. Epirubicin; 40 mg/m²	Superior TTP
Bastholt et al. 1996	1987-1991	Phase 3 (C)	2. Epirubicin; 60 mg/m² 3. Epirubicin; 135 mg/m²	Did not meet primary endpoint of TTP
Ejlertsen et al. 2004 (SBG 9403)	1995-1999	Phase 3 (C)	VE	Seems to have inferior PFS

Chemotherapy

Epirubicin (Ellence) 90 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycles

Regimen variant #8, 120 mg/m², split doses

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Dogliotti et al. 1996	1991-1993	Phase 3 (C)	Epirubicin & Lonidamine	Inferior ORR
Berruti et al. 2002	1995-1999	Phase 3 (C)	1. Cisplatin & Epirubicin 2. Cisplatin, Epirubicin, Lonidamine 3. Epirubicin & Lonidamine	Did not meet primary endpoint of TTP

Chemotherapy

Epirubicin (Ellence) 60 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 2

21-day cycles

Regimen variant #9, 135 mg/m²

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Bastholt et al. 1996	1987-1991	Phase 3 (E-esc)	1. Epirubicin; 40 mg/m² 2. Epirubicin; 60 mg/m² 3. Epirubicin; 90 mg/m²	Did not meet primary endpoint of TTP

Chemotherapy

Epirubicin (Ellence) 135 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycles

References

Gundersen S, Kvinnsland S, Klepp O, Lund E, Høst H; Norwegian Breast Cancer Group. Weekly Adriamycin vs 4-epidoxorubicin every second week in advanced breast cancer: a randomized trial. Eur J Cancer. 1990 Jan;26(1):45-8. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
Nielsen D, Dombernowsky P, Skovsgaard T, Jensen J, Andersen E, Engelholm SA, Hansen M. Epirubicin or epirubicin and vindesine in advanced breast cancer: a phase III study. Ann Oncol. 1990 Jul;1(4):275-80. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
Bonneterre J, Hurteloup P; French Epirubicin Study Group. A prospective randomized trial comparing epirubicin monochemotherapy to two fluorouracil, cyclophosphamide, and epirubicin regimens differing in epirubicin dose in advanced breast cancer patients. J Clin Oncol. 1991 Feb;9(2):305-12. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
Perez DJ, Harvey VJ, Robinson BA, Atkinson CH, Dady PJ, Kirk AR, Evans BD, Chapman PJ. A randomized comparison of single-agent doxorubicin and epirubicin as first-line cytotoxic therapy in advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1991 Dec;9(12):2148-52. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
Bastholt L, Dalmark M, Gjedde SB, Pfeiffer P, Pedersen D, Sandberg E, Kjaer M, Mouridsen HT, Rose C, Nielsen OS, Jakobsen P, Bentzen SM; Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group. Dose-response relationship of epirubicin in the treatment of postmenopausal patients with metastatic breast cancer: a randomized study of epirubicin at four different dose levels performed by the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group. J Clin Oncol. 1996 Apr;14(4):1146-55. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
Dogliotti L, Berruti A, Buniva T, Zola P, Baù MG, Farris A, Sarobba MG, Bottini A, Alquati P, Deltetto F, Gosso P, Monzeglio C, Moro G, Sussio M, Perroni D. Lonidamine significantly increases the activity of epirubicin in patients with advanced breast cancer: results from a multicenter prospective randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 1996 Apr;14(4):1165-72. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
Nielsen D, Dombernowsky P, Larsen SK, Hansen OP, Skovsgaard T. Epirubicin or epirubicin and cisplatin as first-line therapy in advanced breast cancer: a phase III study. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2000;46(6):459-66. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
Berruti A, Bitossi R, Gorzegno G, Bottini A, Alquati P, De Matteis A, Nuzzo F, Giardina G, Danese S, De Lena M, Lorusso V, Farris A, Sarobba MG, DeFabiani E, Bonazzi G, Castiglione F, Bumma C, Moro G, Bruzzi P, Dogliotti L; Epirubicin-Lonidamine Group. Time to progression in metastatic breast cancer patients treated with epirubicin is not improved by the addition of either cisplatin or lonidamine: final results of a phase III study with a factorial design. J Clin Oncol. 2002 Oct 15;20(20):4150-9. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
SBG 9403: Ejlertsen B, Mouridsen HT, Langkjer ST, Andersen J, Sjöström J, Kjaer M; Scandinavian Breast Group. Phase III study of intravenous vinorelbine in combination with epirubicin versus epirubicin alone in patients with advanced breast cancer: a Scandinavian Breast Group Trial (SBG9403). J Clin Oncol. 2004 Jun 15;22(12):2313-20. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
Feher O, Vodvarka P, Jassem J, Morack G, Advani SH, Khoo KS, Doval DC, Ermisch S, Roychowdhury D, Miller MA, von Minckwitz G. First-line gemcitabine versus epirubicin in postmenopausal women aged 60 or older with metastatic breast cancer: a multicenter, randomized, phase III study. Ann Oncol. 2005 Jun;16(6):899-908. Epub 2005 Apr 8. link to original article contains protocol PubMed

FAC

back to top

FAC: Fluorouracil, Adriamycin (Doxorubicin), Cyclophosphamide
CAF: Cyclophosphamide, Adriamycin (Doxorubicin), Fluorouracil
AFC: Adriamycin (Doxorubicin), Fluorouracil, Cyclophosphamide

Regimen variant #1, 500/50/500

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Smalley et al. 1977	1974-1975	Phase 3 (E-de-esc)	CMFVP	Might have superior OS¹
Bennett et al. 1988	1983-1985	Phase 3 (C)	CNF	Did not meet endpoints of TTF/OS
Muss et al. 1991	1984-1989	Non-randomized portion of RCT
Blajman et al. 1999	1991-1994	Phase 3 (C)	NA	Did not meet primary endpoint of ORR
Jassem et al. 2001	1996-1998	Phase 3 (C)	AT (Taxol)	Seems to have inferior OS
Bontenbal et al. 2005	1997-2002	Phase 3 (C)	AT (Taxotere)	Seems to have inferior OS
Robert et al. 2011 (RIBBON-1)	2005-2007	Phase 3 (C)	FAC & Bevacizumab	Inferior PFS

¹Reported efficacy for Smalley et al. 1977 is based on the 1983 update.

Chemotherapy

Fluorouracil (5-FU) 500 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 50 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 500 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for up to 6 to 8 cycles

Subsequent treatment

Muss et al. 1991: CMFP versus observation, then CMFP at progression

Regimen variant #2, 600/50/600

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Alonso et al. 1995	1988-1991	Phase 3 (C)	CNF	Did not meet endpoints of ORR/OS

Chemotherapy

Fluorouracil (5-FU) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 50 mg/m²/day IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for up to 10 cycles

Regimen variant #3, 800/40/400

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Tranum et al. 1978	NR	Randomized (E-esc)	1. AF 2. AFCM	Did not meet primary endpoint of ORR

Chemotherapy

Fluorouracil (5-FU) 400 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8
Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 40 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 400 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycles

Regimen variant #4, 1000/40/500

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Aisner et al. 1995 (CALGB 8281)	1982-1987	Phase 3 (C)	1. VATH 2. VATH/CMFVP	Did not meet primary endpoint of ORR
Parnes et al. 2003 (CALGB 9140)	1991-1995	Phase 3 (C)	FAC & Leucovorin	Did not meet primary endpoint of ORR

Note: Aisner et al. 1995 does not describe dosing; included here because it is a CALGB study.

Chemotherapy

Fluorouracil (5-FU) 200 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 to 5
Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 40 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 500 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycles

Regimen variant #5, 1000/50/500

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Hortobagyi et al. 1979	1974-NR	Phase 3 (C)	FAC-BCG	Inferior OS in responders

Chemotherapy

Fluorouracil (5-FU) 500 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8 or days 1 & 4
Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 50 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 500 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycles

Regimen variant #6, 1000/50/1400

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Aisner et al. 1987	1976-1980	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	1. CAFVP	Not reported
Aisner et al. 1987	1976-1980	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	2. CMF	Superior ORR
Kardinal et al. 1983 (CALGB 8081)	1980-1982	Randomized (C)	CAFT	Did not meet primary endpoint of ORR

Chemotherapy

Fluorouracil (5-FU) 500 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8
Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 25 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 100 mg/m² PO once per day on days 1 to 14

28-day cycle for up to 9 cycles

Regimen variant #7, 1000/60/1400 x 6

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Sledge et al. 2000 (ECOG E3186)	1988-1992	Phase 3 (C)	CAFTH	Might have inferior TTF

Chemotherapy

Fluorouracil (5-FU) 500 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8
Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 30 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 100 mg/m² PO once per day on days 1 to 14

28-day cycle for up to 6 cycles

Regimen variant #8, 1000/60/1400, maximum doxorubicin of 500 mg/m²

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Cummings et al. 1985	1978-1979	Randomized (E-de-esc)	CMFP	Did not meet primary endpoint of ORR
Falkson et al. 1987 (ECOG E2177)	NR-1983	Randomized (C)	O+CAF	Did not meet primary endpoints of ORR/TTF/OS

Chemotherapy

Fluorouracil (5-FU) 500 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8
Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 30 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 100 mg/m² PO once per day on days 1 to 14

28-day cycles until maximum cumulative dose of doxorubicin of 500 mg/m²

Regimen variant #9, 1000/60/1400, indefinite

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Bull et al. 1978	NR	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	CMF	Might have superior ORR
Tominaga et al. 1994	NR	Phase 3 (C)	CAF & MPA	Seems to have inferior ORR

Note: the dosing details of Tominaga et al. 1994 are not described in the abstract.

Chemotherapy

Fluorouracil (5-FU) 500 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8
Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 30 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 100 mg/m² PO once per day on days 1 to 14

28-day cycles

References

Smalley RV, Carpenter J, Bartolucci A, Vogel C, Krauss S; Southeastern Cancer Study Group. A comparison of cyclophosphamide, adriamycin, 5-fluorouracil (CAF) and cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil, vincristine, prednisone (CMFVP) in patients with metastatic breast cancer: a Southeastern Cancer Study Group project. Cancer. 1977 Aug;40(2):625-32. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
1. Update: Smalley RV, Lefante J, Bartolucci A, Carpenter J, Vogel C, Krauss S. A comparison of cyclophosphamide, adriamycin, and 5-fluorouracil (CAF) and cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil, vincristine, and prednisone (CMFVP) in patients with advanced breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1983;3(2):209-20. link to original article PubMed
Bull JM, Tormey DC, Li SH, Carbone PP, Falkson G, Blom J, Perlin E, Simon R. A randomized comparative trial of adriamycin versus methotrexate in combination drug therapy. Cancer. 1978 May;41(5):1649-57. link to original article PubMed
Tranum B, Hoogstraten B, Kennedy A, Vaughn CB, Samal B, Thigpen T, Rivkin S, Smith F, Palmer RL, Costanzi J, Tucker WG, Wilson H, Maloney TR; SWOG. Adriamycin in combination for the treatment of breast cancer: a Southwest Oncology Group study. Cancer. 1978 Jun;41(6):2078-83. link to original article PubMed
Hortobagyi GN, Gutterman JU, Blumenschein GR, Tashima CK, Burgess MA, Einhorn L, Buzdar AU, Richman SP, Hersh EM. Combination chemoimmunotherapy of metastatic breast cancer with 5-fluorouracil, adriamycin, cyclophosphamide, and BCG. Cancer. 1979 Nov;44(5):1955-62. link to original article PubMed
Cummings FJ, Gelman R, Horton J. Comparison of CAF versus CMFP in metastatic breast cancer: analysis of prognostic factors. J Clin Oncol. 1985 Jul;3(7):932-40. link to original article PubMed
ECOG E2177: Falkson G, Gelman RS, Tormey DC, Falkson CI, Wolter JM, Cummings FJ. Treatment of metastatic breast cancer in premenopausal women using CAF with or without oophorectomy: an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Study. J Clin Oncol. 1987 Jun;5(6):881-9. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
1. Update: Falkson G, Holcroft C, Gelman RS, Tormey DC, Wolter JM, Cummings FJ. Ten-year follow-up study of premenopausal women with metastatic breast cancer: an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol. 1995 Jun;13(6):1453-8. link to original article PubMed
Aisner J, Weinberg V, Perloff M, Weiss R, Perry M, Korzun A, Ginsberg S, Holland JF; CALGB. Chemotherapy versus chemoimmunotherapy (CAF v CAFVP v CMF each +/- MER) for metastatic carcinoma of the breast: a CALGB study. J Clin Oncol. 1987 Oct;5(10):1523-33. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
CALGB 8081: Kardinal CG, Perry MC, Weinberg V, Wood W, Ginsberg S, Raju RN. Chemoendocrine therapy vs chemotherapy alone for advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal women: preliminary report of a randomized study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1983;3(4):365-71. link to original article PubMed
1. Update: Perry MC, Kardinal CG, Korzun AH, Ginsberg SJ, Raich PC, Holland JF, Ellison RR, Kopel S, Schilling A, Aisner J, Schulman P, Weinberg V, Rice MA, Wood W. Chemohormonal therapy in advanced carcinoma of the breast: Cancer and Leukemia Group B protocol 8081. J Clin Oncol. 1987 Oct;5(10):1534-45. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
Bennett JM, Muss HB, Doroshow JH, Wolff S, Krementz ET, Cartwright K, Dukart G, Reisman A, Schoch I. A randomized multicenter trial comparing mitoxantrone, cyclophosphamide, and fluorouracil with doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, and fluorouracil in the therapy of metastatic breast carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 1988 Oct;6(10):1611-20. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
Muss HB, Case LD, Richards F 2nd, White DR, Cooper MR, Cruz JM, Powell BL, Spurr CL, Capizzi RL; Piedmont Oncology Association. Interrupted versus continuous chemotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 1991 Nov 7;325(19):1342-8. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
Tominaga T, Abe O, Ohshima A, Hayasaka H, Uchino J, Abe R, Enomoto K, Izuo M, Watanabe H, Takatani O, Yoshida M, Sakai K, Koyama H, Hattori T, Senoo T, Monden Y, Nomura Y. Comparison of chemotherapy with or without medroxyprogesterone acetate for advanced or recurrent breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 1994;30A(7):959-64. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
Alonso MC, Tabernero JM, Ojeda B, Llanos M, Solà C, Climent MA, Seguí MA, López JJ. A phase III randomized trial of cyclophosphamide, mitoxantrone, and 5-fluorouracil (CNF) versus cyclophosphamide, adriamycin, and 5-fluorouracil (CAF) in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1995 Apr;34(1):15-24. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
CALGB 8281: Aisner J, Cirrincione C, Perloff M, Perry M, Budman D, Abrams J, Panasci L, Muss H, Citron M, Holland J, Wood W, Henderson IC. Combination chemotherapy for metastatic or recurrent carcinoma of the breast--a randomized phase III trial comparing CAF versus VATH versus VATH alternating with CMFVP: Cancer and Leukemia Group B Study 8281. J Clin Oncol. 1995 Jun;13(6):1443-52. link to original article does not contain protocol PubMed
Blajman C, Balbiani L, Block J, Coppola F, Chacon R, Fein L, Bonicatto S, Alvarez A, Schmilovich A, Delgado FM. A prospective, randomized Phase III trial comparing combination chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and 5-fluorouracil with vinorelbine plus doxorubicin in the treatment of advanced breast carcinoma. Cancer. 1999 Mar 1;85(5):1091-7. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
ECOG E3186: Sledge GW Jr, Hu P, Falkson G, Tormey D, Abeloff M. Comparison of chemotherapy with chemohormonal therapy as first-line therapy for metastatic, hormone-sensitive breast cancer: an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol. 2000 Jan;18(2):262-6. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
Jassem J, Pieńkowski T, Płuzańska A, Jelic S, Gorbunova V, Mrsic-Krmpotic Z, Berzins J, Nagykalnai T, Wigler N, Renard J, Munier S, Weil C; Central & Eastern Europe and Israel Pacitaxel Breast Cancer Study Group. Doxorubicin and paclitaxel versus fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide as first-line therapy for women with metastatic breast cancer: final results of a randomized phase III multicenter trial. J Clin Oncol. 2001 Mar 15;19(6):1707-15. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
CALGB 9140: Parnes HL, Cirrincione C, Aisner J, Berry DA, Allen SL, Abrams J, Chuang E, Cooper MR, Perry MC, Duggan DB, Szatrowski TP, Henderson IC, Norton L; CALGB. Phase III study of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and fluorouracil (CAF) plus leucovorin versus CAF for metastatic breast cancer: Cancer and Leukemia Group B 9140. J Clin Oncol. 2003 May 1;21(9):1819-24. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
Bontenbal M, Creemers GJ, Braun HJ, de Boer AC, Janssen JT, Leys RB, Ruit JB, Goey SH, van der Velden PC, Kerkhofs LG, Schothorst KL, Schmitz PI, Bokma HJ, Verweij J, Seynaeve C; Dutch Community Setting Trial for the Clinical Trial Group. Phase II to III study comparing doxorubicin and docetaxel with fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide as first-line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer: results of a Dutch Community Setting Trial for the Clinical Trial Group of the Comprehensive Cancer Centre. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Oct 1;23(28):7081-8. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
RIBBON-1: Robert NJ, Diéras V, Glaspy J, Brufsky AM, Bondarenko I, Lipatov ON, Perez EA, Yardley DA, Chan SY, Zhou X, Phan SC, O'Shaughnessy J. RIBBON-1: randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial of chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab for first-line treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Apr 1;29(10):1252-60. Epub 2011 Mar 7. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00262067

FAC & Bevacizumab

back to top

FAC & Bevacizumab: Fluorouracil, Adriamycin (Doxorubicin), Cyclophosphamide, Bevacizumab

Regimen

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Robert et al. 2011 (RIBBON-1)	2005-2007	Phase 3 (E-esc)	FAC	Superior PFS (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.52-0.80)

Chemotherapy

Fluorouracil (5-FU) 500 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 50 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 500 mg/m² IV once on day 1

Targeted therapy

Bevacizumab (Avastin) 15 mg/kg IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for up to 8 cycles

Subsequent treatment

Bevacizumab maintenance, if no PD

References

RIBBON-1: Robert NJ, Diéras V, Glaspy J, Brufsky AM, Bondarenko I, Lipatov ON, Perez EA, Yardley DA, Chan SY, Zhou X, Phan SC, O'Shaughnessy J. RIBBON-1: randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial of chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab for first-line treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Apr 1;29(10):1252-60. Epub 2011 Mar 7. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00262067

FEC

back to top

FEC: Fluorouracil, Epirubicin, Cyclophosphamide
CEF: Cyclophosphamide, Epirubicin, Fluorouracil

Regimen variant #1, 500/50/500 ("FEC 50")

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Bonneterre & Hurteloup 1991	NR	Phase 3 (C)	Epirubicin	Seems to have superior ORR
Bonneterre & Hurteloup 1991	NR	Phase 3 (C)	FEC; FEC 75	Did not meet primary endpoint of ORR
Focan et al. 1993	1985-1990	Phase 3 (C)	FEC; FEC 100	Seems to have inferior TTP
Brufman et al. 1997 (HEPI 010)	1989-1992	Phase 3 (C)	FEC; FEC 100	Inferior ORR

Chemotherapy

Fluorouracil (5-FU) 500 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Epirubicin (Ellence) 50 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 500 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 6 to 8 cycles

Regimen variant #2, 500/60/500

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Blomqvist et al. 1993	1987-1991	Phase 3 (C)	FEC; weekly	Superior OS

Chemotherapy

Fluorouracil (5-FU) 500 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Epirubicin (Ellence) 60 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 500 mg/m² IV once on day 1

28-day cycles

Regimen variant #3, 500/75/500 ("FEC 75")

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Bonneterre & Hurteloup 1991	NR	Phase 3 (E-esc)	Epirubicin	Superior ORR
Bonneterre & Hurteloup 1991	NR	Phase 3 (E-esc)	FEC; FEC 50	Did not meet primary endpoint of ORR
Pacini et al. 2000	1991-1996	Phase 3 (C)	EM +/- Lonidamine	Inferior OS
Capotorto et al. 2003	1995-1998	Phase 3 (C)	1. Dose-dense FEC	Inferior ORR
Capotorto et al. 2003	1995-1998	Phase 3 (C)	2. Dose-dense MMM	Did not meet endpoint of ORR
Bonneterre et al. 2004	1998-2000	Randomized Phase II (C)	DE	Inferior ORR

Chemotherapy

Fluorouracil (5-FU) 500 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Epirubicin (Ellence) 75 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 500 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycles

Regimen variant #4, 500/90/500

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Zielinksi et al. 2005 (CECOG BM1)	1999-2002	Phase 3 (C)	GET	Did not meet primary endpoint of TTP
Robert et al. 2011 (RIBBON-1)	2005-2007	Phase 3 (C)	FEC & Bevacizumab	Inferior PFS

Note: this is the lower bound of the dosing range allowed in RIBBON-1.

Chemotherapy

Fluorouracil (5-FU) 500 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Epirubicin (Ellence) 90 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 500 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for up to 8 cycles

Regimen variant #5, 500/100/500 ("FEC 100")

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Focan et al. 1993	1985-1990	Phase 3 (E-esc)	FEC; FEC 50	Seems to have superior TTP
Brufman et al. 1997 (HEPI 010)	1989-1992	Phase 3 (E-esc)	FEC; FEC 50	Superior ORR
Robert et al. 2011 (RIBBON-1)	2005-2007	Phase 3 (C)	FEC & Bevacizumab	Inferior PFS

Note: this is the upper bound of the dosing range allowed in RIBBON-1.

Chemotherapy

Fluorouracil (5-FU) 500 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Epirubicin (Ellence) 100 mg/m² IV once on day 1
- Note: in Focan et al. 1993, dose was split: 50 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 500 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 6 to 8 cycles

Regimen variant #6, 600/60/600 ("CEF21")

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Conte et al. 1987	1983-1985	Randomized (C)	DES-CEF	Did not meet primary endpoint of ORR
Conte et al. 1996	1985-1990	Phase 3 (C)	DES-CEF	Did not meet primary endpoint of ORR
Ejlertsen et al. 1993	1986-1989	Phase 3 (C)	FEC x 18 mo	Inferior OS
Del Mastro et al. 2001	1994-1997	Phase 3 (C)	HD-CEF14	Did not meet primary endpoint of ORR

Note: dosing information was not available in the abstract of Ejlertsen et al. 1993; this dosing has been used in other studies by this group.

Chemotherapy

Fluorouracil (5-FU) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Epirubicin (Ellence) 60 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for 8 to 12 cycles

Regimen variant #7, 1000/50/500 until max anthracycline

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy	Comparative Toxicity
Ambrosini et al. 1988	1983-1985	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	FAC	Did not meet primary endpoint	Less toxic

Chemotherapy

Fluorouracil (5-FU) 500 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8
Epirubicin (Ellence) 50 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 500 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for up to 14 cycles (maximum of 700 mg/m² epirubicin)

Regimen variant #8, 1000/60/1400

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Esteban et al. 1999	1987-1993	Phase 3 (C)	CNF	Seems to have superior OS

Chemotherapy

Fluorouracil (5-FU) 500 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8
Epirubicin (Ellence) 30 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 100 mg/m² PO once per day on days 1 to 14

28-day cycles

Regimen variant #9, 1000/100/800

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Ackland et al. 2001 (HEPI 013)	1990-1992	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	CMF	Superior TTP

Chemotherapy

Fluorouracil (5-FU) 500 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8
Epirubicin (Ellence) 50 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 400 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8

28-day cycle for 6 to 8 cycles

References

Conte PF, Pronzato P, Rubagotti A, Alama A, Amadori D, Demicheli R, Gardin G, Gentilini P, Jacomuzzi A, Lionetto R, Monzeglio C, Nicolin A, Rosso R, Sismondi P, Sussio M, Santi L. Conventional versus cytokinetic polychemotherapy with estrogenic recruitment in metastatic breast cancer: results of a randomized cooperative trial. J Clin Oncol. 1987 Mar;5(3):339-47. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
Ambrosini G, Balli M, Garusi G, Demicheli R, Jirillo A, Bonciarelli G, Bruscagnin G, Fila G, Bumma C, Lacroix F, Buzzi F, Di Costanzo F, Padalino D, Brugia M, Calabresi F, Natali M, Cartei G, Chiesa G, Blasina B, Ciambellotti E, Moro G, D'Aquino S, Altavilla G, Adamo V, De Maria D, Falchi AM, Bertoncelli P, Farris A, Fiorentino M, Fornasiero A, Fosser V, Daniele O, Foggi CM, Speranza GB, Sartori S, Camilluzzi E, Gallo L, Poggio R, Secondo V, Gambi A, Grignani F, Capodicasa E, Lopez M, Papaldo P, Di Lauro L, Vici P, Marenco G, Folco U, Bonanni F, Marsilio P, Palazzotto G, Di Carlo A, Cusimano MP, Pastorino G, Puccetti C, Giusto M, Rausa L, Gebbia N, Palmeri S, D'Alessandro N, Saccani F, Becchi G, Schieppati G, Spinelli I, Tagliagambe A, Tonato M, Minotti V, Ardia A, Viaro D, De Micheli P, Zingali G, Sacchetti G, Intini C; Italian Multicentre Breast Study with Epirubicin. Phase III randomized study of fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide v fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide in advanced breast cancer: an Italian multicentre trial. J Clin Oncol. 1988 Jun;6(6):976-82. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
Bonneterre J, Hurteloup P; French Epirubicin Study Group. A prospective randomized trial comparing epirubicin monochemotherapy to two fluorouracil, cyclophosphamide, and epirubicin regimens differing in epirubicin dose in advanced breast cancer patients. J Clin Oncol. 1991 Feb;9(2):305-12. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
Ejlertsen B, Pfeiffer P, Pedersen D, Mouridsen HT, Rose C, Overgaard M, Sandberg E, Kristensen B. Decreased efficacy of cyclophosphamide, epirubicin and 5-fluorouracil in metastatic breast cancer when reducing treatment duration from 18 to 6 months. Eur J Cancer. 1993;29A(4):527-31. link to original article PubMed
Blomqvist C, Elomaa I, Rissanen P, Hietanen P, Nevasaari K, Helle L. Influence of treatment schedule on toxicity and efficacy of cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and fluorouracil in metastatic breast cancer: a randomized trial comparing weekly and every-4-week administration. J Clin Oncol. 1993 Mar;11(3):467-73. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
Focan C, Andrien JM, Closon MT, Dicato M, Driesschaert P, Focan-Henrard D, Lemaire M, Lobelle JP, Longree L, Ries F. Dose-response relationship of epirubicin-based first-line chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer: a prospective randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 1993 Jul;11(7):1253-63. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
Conte PF, Baldini E, Gardin G, Pronzato P, Amadori D, Carnino F, Monzeglio C, Gentilini P, Gallotti P, DeMicheli R, Venturini M, Rubagotti A, Rosso R; GONO. Chemotherapy with or without estrogenic recruitment in metastatic breast cancer: a randomized trial of the Gruppo Oncologico Nord Ovest (GONO). Ann Oncol. 1996 Jul;7(5):487-90. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
HEPI 010: Brufman G, Colajori E, Ghilezan N, Lassus M, Martoni A, Perevodchikova N, Tosello C, Viaro D, Zielinski C; Epirubicin High Dose (HEPI 010) Study Group. Doubling epirubicin dose intensity (100 mg/m² versus 50 mg/m²) in the FEC regimen significantly increases response rates: an international randomised phase III study in metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 1997 Feb;8(2):155-62. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
Esteban E, Lacave AJ, Fernández JL, Corral N, Buesa JM, Estrada E, Palacio I, Vieitez JM, Muñiz I, Alvarez E. Phase III trial of cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, fluorouracil (CEF) versus cyclophosphamide, mitoxantrone, fluorouracil (CNF) in women with metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1999 Nov;58(2):141-50. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
Pacini P, Rinaldini M, Algeri R, Guarneri A, Tucci E, Barsanti G, Neri B, Bastiani P, Marzano S, Fallai C. FEC (5-fluorouracil, epidoxorubicin and cyclophosphamide) versus EM (epidoxorubicin and mitomycin-C) with or without lonidamine as first-line treatment for advanced breast cancer, a multicentric randomised study: final results. Eur J Cancer. 2000 May;36(8):966-75. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
HEPI 013: Ackland SP, Anton A, Breitbach GP, Colajori E, Tursi JM, Delfino C, Efremidis A, Ezzat A, Fittipaldo A, Kolaric K, Lopez M, Viaro D; HEPI 013 study group. Dose-intensive epirubicin-based chemotherapy is superior to an intensive intravenous cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil regimen in metastatic breast cancer: a randomized multinational study. J Clin Oncol. 2001 Feb 15;19(4):943-53. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
Del Mastro L, Venturini M, Lionetto R, Carnino F, Guarneri D, Gallo L, Contu A, Pronzato P, Vesentini L, Bergaglio M, Comis S, Rosso R; GONO; MIG. Accelerated-intensified cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and fluorouracil (CEF) compared with standard CEF in metastatic breast cancer patients: results of a multicenter, randomized phase III study of the Italian Gruppo Oncologico Nord-Ouest-Mammella Inter Gruppo Group. J Clin Oncol. 2001 Apr 15;19(8):2213-21. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
Capotorto AM, Pavesi L, Pedrazzoli P, Da Prada GA, Zamagni C, Massidda B, Farris A, Martoni A, Lelli G, Robustelli della Cuna G. Randomized, controlled, multicenter phase III trial of standard-dose fluorouracil-epirubicin-cyclophosphamide (FEC), compared with time-intensive FEC (FEC-G) and mitoxantrone-methotrexate-mitomycin C (MMM-G) in metastatic breast carcinoma. J Chemother. 2003 Apr;15(2):184-91. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
Bonneterre J, Dieras V, Tubiana-Hulin M, Bougnoux P, Bonneterre ME, Delozier T, Mayer F, Culine S, Dohoulou N, Bendahmane B. Phase II multicentre randomised study of docetaxel plus epirubicin vs 5-fluorouracil plus epirubicin and cyclophosphamide in metastatic breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2004 Oct 18;91(8):1466-71. link to original article link to PMC article contains protocol PubMed
CECOG BM1: Zielinski C, Beslija S, Mrsic-Krmpotic Z, Welnicka-Jaskiewicz M, Wiltschke C, Kahan Z, Grgic M, Tzekova V, Inbar M, Cervek J, Chernozemsky I, Szanto J, Spanik S, Wagnerova M, Ghilezan N, Pawlega J, Vrbanec D, Khamtsov D, Soldatenkova V, Brodowicz T. Gemcitabine, epirubicin, and paclitaxel versus fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide as first-line chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer: a Central European Cooperative Oncology Group International, multicenter, prospective, randomized phase III trial. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Mar 1;23(7):1401-8. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
RIBBON-1: Robert NJ, Diéras V, Glaspy J, Brufsky AM, Bondarenko I, Lipatov ON, Perez EA, Yardley DA, Chan SY, Zhou X, Phan SC, O'Shaughnessy J. RIBBON-1: randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial of chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab for first-line treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Apr 1;29(10):1252-60. Epub 2011 Mar 7. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00262067

FEC & Bevacizumab

back to top

FEC & Bevacizumab: Fluorouracil, Epirubicin, Cyclophosphamide, Bevacizumab

Regimen

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Robert et al. 2011 (RIBBON-1)	2005-2007	Phase 3 (E-esc)	FEC	Superior PFS (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.52-0.80)

Chemotherapy

Fluorouracil (5-FU) 500 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Epirubicin (Ellence) 90 to 100 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 500 mg/m² IV once on day 1

Targeted therapy

Bevacizumab (Avastin) 15 mg/kg IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for up to 8 cycles

Subsequent treatment

Bevacizumab maintenance, if no PD

References

RIBBON-1: Robert NJ, Diéras V, Glaspy J, Brufsky AM, Bondarenko I, Lipatov ON, Perez EA, Yardley DA, Chan SY, Zhou X, Phan SC, O'Shaughnessy J. RIBBON-1: randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial of chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab for first-line treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Apr 1;29(10):1252-60. Epub 2011 Mar 7. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00262067

Gemcitabine monotherapy

back to top

Regimen

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence
Carmichael et al. 1995	NR	Phase II, <20 pts in this subgroup

Chemotherapy

Gemcitabine (Gemzar) 800 mg/m² IV over 30 minutes once per day on days 1, 8, 15

28-day cycles

References

Carmichael J, Possinger K, Phillip P, Beykirch M, Kerr H, Walling J, Harris AL. Advanced breast cancer: a phase II trial with gemcitabine. J Clin Oncol. 1995 Nov;13(11):2731-6. link to original article contains protocol PubMed

Gemcitabine & Paclitaxel

back to top

GT: Gemcitabine & Taxol (Paclitaxel)
PG: Paclitaxel & Gemcitabine

Regimen variant #1, 6 cycles

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence
Park et al. 2013 (KCSG-BR07-02)	2007-2010	Non-randomized portion of RCT

Chemotherapy

Gemcitabine (Gemzar) 1250 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8, given second on day 1
Paclitaxel (Taxol) 175 mg/m² IV once on day 1, given first

21-day cycle for 6 cycles

Subsequent treatment

Maintenance PG versus Observation

Regimen variant #2, indefinite

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Albain et al. 2008	1999-2002	Phase 3 (E-RT-esc)	Paclitaxel	Seems to have superior OS
Del Mastro et al. 2013 (B9E-IT-S376)	2005-2010	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	1. GD; weekly 2. GD; q3wk 3. GT; weekly	Did not meet primary endpoint of TTP

Chemotherapy

Gemcitabine (Gemzar) 1250 mg/m² IV over 30 to 60 minutes once per day on days 1 & 8, given second on day 1
Paclitaxel (Taxol) 175 mg/m² IV over 3 hours once on day 1, given first

21-day cycles

References

Albain KS, Nag SM, Calderillo-Ruiz G, Jordaan JP, Llombart AC, Pluzanska A, Rolski J, Melemed AS, Reyes-Vidal JM, Sekhon JS, Simms L, O'Shaughnessy J. Gemcitabine plus paclitaxel versus paclitaxel monotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer and prior anthracycline treatment. J Clin Oncol. 2008 Aug 20;26(24):3950-7. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
B9E-IT-S376: Del Mastro L, Fabi A, Mansutti M, De Laurentiis M, Durando A, Merlo DF, Bruzzi P, La Torre I, Ceccarelli M, Kazeem G, Marchi P, Boy D, Venturini M, De Placido S, Cognetti F. Randomised phase 3 open-label trial of first-line treatment with gemcitabine in association with docetaxel or paclitaxel in women with metastatic breast cancer: a comparison of different schedules and treatments. BMC Cancer. 2013 Mar 28;13:164. link to original article link to PMC article contains protocol PubMed NCT00236899
KCSG-BR07-02: Park YH, Jung KH, Im SA, Sohn JH, Ro J, Ahn JH, Kim SB, Nam BH, Oh DY, Han SW, Lee S, Park IH, Lee KS, Kim JH, Kang SY, Lee MH, Park HS, Ahn JS, Im YH. Phase III, multicenter, randomized trial of maintenance chemotherapy versus observation in patients with metastatic breast cancer after achieving disease control with six cycles of gemcitabine plus paclitaxel as first-line chemotherapy: KCSG-BR07-02. J Clin Oncol. 2013 May 10;31(14):1732-9. Epub 2013 Apr 8. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00561119

Cyclophosphamide & NPLD (MC)

back to top

MC: Myocet (non-pegylated liposomal doxorubicin) & Cyclophosphamide

Regimen variant #1, 60/600

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Lorusso et al. 2014	2006-2011	Phase 3 (C)	NPLD & Vinorelbine	Did not meet primary endpoint of TTP

Chemotherapy

Non-pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (Myocet) 60 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycles

Regimen variant #2, 75/600

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Chan et al. 2004	1996-1997	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	EC	Seems to have superior TTP

Chemotherapy

Non-pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (Myocet) 75 mg/m² IV once on day 1
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for up to 8 cycles

References

Chan S, Davidson N, Juozaityte E, Erdkamp F, Pluzanska A, Azarnia N, Lee LW. Phase III trial of liposomal doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide compared with epirubicin and cyclophosphamide as first-line therapy for metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2004 Oct;15(10):1527-34. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
Lorusso V, Giotta F, Bordonaro R, Maiello E, Del Prete S, Gebbia V, Filippelli G, Pisconti S, Cinieri S, Romito S, Riccardi F, Forcignanò R, Ciccarese M, Petrucelli L, Saracino V, Lupo LI, Gambino A, Leo S, Colucci G; Gruppo Oncologico Dell'Italia Meridionale. Non-pegylated liposome-encapsulated doxorubicin citrate plus cyclophosphamide or vinorelbine in metastatic breast cancer not previously treated with chemotherapy:a multicenter phase III study. Int J Oncol. 2014 Nov;45(5):2137-42. Epub 2014 Aug 18. link to original article contains protocol PubMed

Paclitaxel monotherapy, weekly

back to top

Regimen variant #1, 80 mg/m² weekly

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Perez et al. 2001	NR	Phase II
Seidman et al. 2008 (CALGB 9840)	1998-NR	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	Paclitaxel; q3wk	Superior OS
Fountzilas et al. 2008	2002-2006	Phase 3 (E-de-esc)	1. Carboplatin & Paclitaxel 2. Docetaxel & Gemcitabine	Seems to have superior OS
Martin et al. 2017 (BELLE-4)	2012-2014	Phase 3 (C)	Buparlisib & Paclitaxel	Did not meet primary endpoint of PFS

Chemotherapy

Paclitaxel (Taxol) 80 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1, 8, 15, 22

28-day cycles

Regimen variant #2, 80 mg/m² 3 weeks out of 4

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy	Comparative Toxicity
Takashima et al. 2015 (SELECT BC)	2006-2010	Phase 3 (C)	S-1	Seems to have non-inferior OS	Inferior EQ-5D score
Fujiwara et al. 2019 (A3105301)	2012-2014	Phase 3 (C)	NK105	Inconclusive whether non-inferior PFS	Higher rate of CIPN

Note: this is the lower limit of dosing allowed in SELECT BC.

Chemotherapy

Paclitaxel (Taxol) 80 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1, 8, 15

28-day cycles

Regimen variant #3, 90 mg/m² 3 weeks out of 4

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Miller et al. 2007 (ECOG E2100)	2001-2004	Phase 3 (C)	Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab	Inferior PFS
Miles et al. 2016 (MERiDiAN)	2012-2013	Phase 3 (C)	Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab	Inferior PFS

Chemotherapy

Paclitaxel (Taxol) 90 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1, 8, 15

28-day cycles

Regimen variant #4, 100 mg/m² weekly

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence
Seidman et al. 1998	NR	Phase II, <20 pts in this subgroup

Chemotherapy

Paclitaxel (Taxol) 100 mg/m² IV over 60 minutes once per day on days 1, 8, 15

21-day cycles

Regimen variant #5, 100 mg/m² 3 weeks out of 4

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy	Comparative Toxicity
Takashima et al. 2015 (SELECT BC)	2006-2010	Phase 3 (C)	S-1	Seems to have non-inferior OS	Inferior EQ-5D score

Note: this is the upper limit of dosing allowed in SELECT BC.

Chemotherapy

Paclitaxel (Taxol) 100 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1, 8, 15

28-day cycles

References

Seidman AD, Hudis CA, Albanell J, Tong W, Tepler I, Currie V, Moynahan ME, Theodoulou M, Gollub M, Baselga J, Norton L. Dose-dense therapy with weekly 1-hour paclitaxel infusions in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1998 Oct;16(10):3353-61. Erratum in: J Clin Oncol. 2006 May 10;24(14):2220. Albanel, J [corrected to Albanell, J ]. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
Perez EA, Vogel CL, Irwin DH, Kirshner JJ, Patel R. Multicenter phase II trial of weekly paclitaxel in women with metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2001 Nov 15;19(22):4216-23. link to original article PubMed
ECOG E2100: Miller K, Wang M, Gralow J, Dickler M, Cobleigh M, Perez EA, Shenkier T, Cella D, Davidson NE. Paclitaxel plus bevacizumab versus paclitaxel alone for metastatic breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007 Dec 27;357(26):2666-76. link to original article PubMed NCT00028990
CALGB 9840: Seidman AD, Berry D, Cirrincione C, Harris L, Muss H, Marcom PK, Gipson G, Burstein H, Lake D, Shapiro CL, Ungaro P, Norton L, Winer E, Hudis C. Randomized phase III trial of weekly compared with every-3-weeks paclitaxel for metastatic breast cancer, with trastuzumab for all HER-2 overexpressors and random assignment to trastuzumab or not in HER-2 nonoverexpressors: final results of Cancer and Leukemia Group B protocol 9840. J Clin Oncol. 2008 Apr 1;26(10):1642-9. link to original article PubMed NCT00003440
Fountzilas G, Dafni U, Dimopoulos MA, Koutras A, Skarlos D, Papakostas P, Gogas H, Bafaloukos D, Kalogera-Fountzila A, Samantas E, Briasoulis E, Pectasides D, Maniadakis N, Matsiakou F, Aravantinos G, Papadimitriou C, Karina M, Christodoulou C, Kosmidis P, Kalofonos HP; Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group. A randomized phase III study comparing three anthracycline-free taxane-based regimens, as first line chemotherapy, in metastatic breast cancer: a Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009 May;115(1):87-99. Epub 2008 May 16. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
SELECT BC: Takashima T, Mukai H, Hara F, Matsubara N, Saito T, Takano T, Park Y, Toyama T, Hozumi Y, Tsurutani J, Imoto S, Watanabe T, Sagara Y, Nishimura R, Shimozuma K, Ohashi Y; SELECT BC Study Group. Taxanes versus S-1 as the first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (SELECT BC): an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016 Jan;17(1):90-8. Epub 2015 Nov 27. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed UMIN C000000416
1. HRQoL analysis: Shiroiwa T, Fukuda T, Shimozuma K, Mouri M, Hagiwara Y, Doihara H, Akabane H, Kashiwaba M, Watanabe T, Ohashi Y, Mukai H. Long-term health status as measured by EQ-5D among patients with metastatic breast cancer: comparison of first-line oral S-1 and taxane therapies in the randomized phase III SELECT BC trial. Qual Life Res. 2017 Feb;26(2):445-453. Epub 2016 Aug 12. link to original article link to PMC article PubMed
MERiDiAN: Miles D, Cameron D, Bondarenko I, Manzyuk L, Alcedo JC, Lopez RI, Im SA, Canon JL, Shparyk Y, Yardley DA, Masuda N, Ro J, Denduluri N, Hubeaux S, Quah C, Bais C, O'Shaughnessy J. Bevacizumab plus paclitaxel versus placebo plus paclitaxel as first-line therapy for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MERiDiAN): A double-blind placebo-controlled randomised phase III trial with prospective biomarker evaluation. Eur J Cancer. 2017 Jan;70:146-155. Epub 2016 Nov 4. link to original article contains protocol PubMed NCT01663727
1. Update: Miles D, Cameron D, Hilton M, Garcia J, O'Shaughnessy J. Overall survival in MERiDiAN, a double-blind placebo-controlled randomised phase III trial evaluating first-line bevacizumab plus paclitaxel for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2018 Feb;90:153-155. Epub 2017 Nov 23. link to original article PubMed
BELLE-4: Martín M, Chan A, Dirix L, O'Shaughnessy J, Hegg R, Manikhas A, Shtivelband M, Krivorotko P, Batista López N, Campone M, Ruiz Borrego M, Khan QJ, Beck JT, Ramos Vázquez M, Urban P, Goteti S, Di Tomaso E, Massacesi C, Delaloge S. A randomized adaptive phase II/III study of buparlisib, a pan-class I PI3K inhibitor, combined with paclitaxel for the treatment of HER2- advanced breast cancer (BELLE-4). Ann Oncol. 2017 Feb 1;28(2):313-320. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT01572727
A3105301: Fujiwara Y, Mukai H, Saeki T, Ro J, Lin YC, Nagai SE, Lee KS, Watanabe J, Ohtani S, Kim SB, Kuroi K, Tsugawa K, Tokuda Y, Iwata H, Park YH, Yang Y, Nambu Y. A multi-national, randomised, open-label, parallel, phase III non-inferiority study comparing NK105 and paclitaxel in metastatic or recurrent breast cancer patients. Br J Cancer. 2019 Mar;120(5):475-480. Epub 2019 Feb 12. link to original article contains protocol PubMed NCT01644890

Paclitaxel monotherapy, q3wk

back to top

Regimen variant #1, 175 mg/m² q3wk

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy	Comparative Toxicity
Seidman et al. 1995	NR	Phase II
Winer et al. 2004 (CALGB 9342)	1994-1997	Phase 3 (C)	1. Paclitaxel; 210 mg/m² q3wk 2. Paclitaxel; 250 mg/m² q3wk	Did not meet primary endpoint of ORR
Seidman et al. 2008 (CALGB 9840)	1998-NR	Phase 3 (C)	Paclitaxel; weekly	Inferior OS
Albain et al. 2008	1999-2002	Phase 3 (C)	GT	Seems to have inferior OS
Gradishar et al. 2005 (CA012-0)	2001-2002	Phase 3 (C)	nab-Paclitaxel	Inferior TTP
Di Leo et al. 2008 (EGF30001)	2004-2005	Phase 3 (C)	Lapatinib & Paclitaxel	Did not meet primary endpoint of TTP	Less toxic
Takashima et al. 2015 (SELECT BC)	2006-2010	Phase 3 (C)	S-1	Seems to have non-inferior OS	Inferior EQ-5D score
Park et al. 2016 (GPMBC301)	2008-2013	Phase 3 (C)	Genexol-PM	Seems to have non-inferior ORR

Note: patients in EGF30001 were NOT required to be HER2-positive.

Chemotherapy

Paclitaxel (Taxol) 175 mg/m² IV over 3 hours once on day 1

21-day cycles

Regimen variant #2, 175 mg/m², CI

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Sledge et al. 2003 (ECOG E1193)	1993-1995	Phase 3 (C)	1. AT (Taxol)	Inferior TTF
Sledge et al. 2003 (ECOG E1193)	1993-1995	Phase 3 (C)	2. Doxorubicin	Did not meet primary endpoint of ORR

Chemotherapy

Paclitaxel (Taxol) 175 mg/m² IV continuous infusion over 24 hours, started on day 1

21-day cycles

Regimen variant #3, 175 mg/m² q4wk

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy	Comparative Toxicity
Takashima et al. 2015 (SELECT BC)	2006-2010	Phase 3 (C)	S-1	Seems to have non-inferior OS	Inferior EQ-5D score

Chemotherapy

Paclitaxel (Taxol) 175 mg/m² IV over 3 hours once on day 1

28-day cycles

Regimen variant #4, 200 mg/m²

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Bishop et al. 1999	1993-NR	Phase 3 (E-de-esc)	CMFP	Seems to have superior OS
Paridaens et al. 2000 (EORTC 10923)	1993-1996	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	Doxorubicin	Inferior PFS

Chemotherapy

Paclitaxel (Taxol) 200 mg/m² IV over 3 hours once on day 1

21-day cycle for 7 or 8 cycles

Regimen variant #5, 250 mg/m²

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Holmes et al. 1991	1990	Phase II
Smith et al. 1996 (NSABP B-26)	1994-1996	Phase 3 (C)	Paclitaxel; 250 mg/m² over 3 hours	Did not meet primary endpoint of ORR

Note: Holmes et al. 1991 is of historic interest, being the first phase II trial of a taxane in breast cancer.

Chemotherapy

Paclitaxel (Taxol) 250 mg/m² IV continuous infusion over 24 hours, started on day 1

21-day cycles

References

Holmes FA, Walters RS, Theriault RL, Forman AD, Newton LK, Raber MN, Buzdar AU, Frye DK, Hortobagyi GN. Phase II trial of taxol, an active drug in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1991 Dec 18;83(24):1797-805. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
Seidman AD, Tiersten A, Hudis C, Gollub M, Barrett S, Yao TJ, Lepore J, Gilewski T, Currie V, Crown J, Hakes T, Baselga J, Sklarin N, Moynihan ME, Tong W, Egorin M, Kearns C, Spriggs D, Norton L. Phase II trial of paclitaxel by 3-hour infusion as initial and salvage chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1995 Oct;13(10):2575-81. link to original article PubMed
Bishop JF, Dewar J, Toner GC, Smith J, Tattersall MH, Olver IN, Ackland S, Kennedy I, Goldstein D, Gurney H, Walpole E, Levi J, Stephenson J, Canetta R. Initial paclitaxel improves outcome compared with CMFP combination chemotherapy as front-line therapy in untreated metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1999 Aug;17(8):2355-64. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
NSABP B-26: Smith RE, Brown AM, Mamounas EP, Anderson SJ, Lembersky BC, Atkins JH, Shibata HR, Baez L, DeFusco PA, Davila E, Tipping SJ, Bearden JD, Thirlwell MP. Randomized trial of 3-hour versus 24-hour infusion of high-dose paclitaxel in patients with metastatic or locally advanced breast cancer: National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol B-26. J Clin Oncol. 1999 Nov;17(11):3403-11. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
EORTC 10923: Paridaens R, Biganzoli L, Bruning P, Klijn JG, Gamucci T, Houston S, Coleman R, Schachter J, Van Vreckem A, Sylvester R, Awada A, Wildiers J, Piccart M. Paclitaxel versus doxorubicin as first-line single-agent chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer: a European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Randomized Study with cross-over. J Clin Oncol. 2000 Feb;18(4):724-33. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
1. HRQoL analysis: Kramer JA, Curran D, Piccart M, de Haes JC, Bruning PF, Klijn JG, Bontenbal M, van Pottelsberghe C, Groenvold M, Paridaens R. Randomised trial of paclitaxel versus doxorubicin as first-line chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer: quality of life evaluation using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the Rotterdam symptom checklist. Eur J Cancer. 2000 Aug;36(12):1488-97. link to original article PubMed
ECOG E1193: Sledge GW, Neuberg D, Bernardo P, Ingle JN, Martino S, Rowinsky EK, Wood WC. Phase III trial of doxorubicin, paclitaxel, and the combination of doxorubicin and paclitaxel as front-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer: an intergroup trial (E1193). J Clin Oncol. 2003 Feb 15;21(4):588-92. link to original article PubMed
CALGB 9342: Winer EP, Berry DA, Woolf S, Duggan D, Kornblith A, Harris LN, Michaelson RA, Kirshner JA, Fleming GF, Perry MC, Graham ML, Sharp SA, Keresztes R, Henderson IC, Hudis C, Muss H, Norton L. Failure of higher-dose paclitaxel to improve outcome in patients with metastatic breast cancer: Cancer and Leukemia Group B trial 9342. J Clin Oncol. 2004 Jun 1;22(11):2061-8. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
CA012-0: Gradishar WJ, Tjulandin S, Davidson N, Shaw H, Desai N, Bhar P, Hawkins M, O'Shaughnessy J. Phase III trial of nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel compared with polyethylated castor oil-based paclitaxel in women with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Nov 1;23(31):7794-803. Epub 2005 Sep 19. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00046527
CALGB 9840: Seidman AD, Berry D, Cirrincione C, Harris L, Muss H, Marcom PK, Gipson G, Burstein H, Lake D, Shapiro CL, Ungaro P, Norton L, Winer E, Hudis C. Randomized phase III trial of weekly compared with every-3-weeks paclitaxel for metastatic breast cancer, with trastuzumab for all HER-2 overexpressors and random assignment to trastuzumab or not in HER-2 nonoverexpressors: final results of Cancer and Leukemia Group B protocol 9840. J Clin Oncol. 2008 Apr 1;26(10):1642-9. link to original article PubMed NCT00003440
Albain KS, Nag SM, Calderillo-Ruiz G, Jordaan JP, Llombart AC, Pluzanska A, Rolski J, Melemed AS, Reyes-Vidal JM, Sekhon JS, Simms L, O'Shaughnessy J. Gemcitabine plus paclitaxel versus paclitaxel monotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer and prior anthracycline treatment. J Clin Oncol. 2008 Aug 20;26(24):3950-7. link to original article PubMed
EGF30001: Di Leo A, Gomez HL, Aziz Z, Zvirbule Z, Bines J, Arbushites MC, Guerrera SF, Koehler M, Oliva C, Stein SH, Williams LS, Dering J, Finn RS, Press MF. Phase III, double-blind, randomized study comparing lapatinib plus paclitaxel with placebo plus paclitaxel as first-line treatment for metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008 Dec 1;26(34):5544-52. Epub 2008 Oct 27. Erratum in: J Clin Oncol. 2009 Apr 10;27(11):1923. link to original article link to PMC article contains protocol PubMed NCT00075270
SELECT BC: Takashima T, Mukai H, Hara F, Matsubara N, Saito T, Takano T, Park Y, Toyama T, Hozumi Y, Tsurutani J, Imoto S, Watanabe T, Sagara Y, Nishimura R, Shimozuma K, Ohashi Y; SELECT BC Study Group. Taxanes versus S-1 as the first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (SELECT BC): an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016 Jan;17(1):90-8. Epub 2015 Nov 27. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed UMIN C000000416
1. HRQoL analysis: Shiroiwa T, Fukuda T, Shimozuma K, Mouri M, Hagiwara Y, Doihara H, Akabane H, Kashiwaba M, Watanabe T, Ohashi Y, Mukai H. Long-term health status as measured by EQ-5D among patients with metastatic breast cancer: comparison of first-line oral S-1 and taxane therapies in the randomized phase III SELECT BC trial. Qual Life Res. 2017 Feb;26(2):445-453. Epub 2016 Aug 12. link to original article link to PMC article PubMed
GPMBC301: Park IH, Sohn JH, Kim SB, Lee KS, Chung JS, Lee SH, Kim TY, Jung KH, Cho EK, Kim YS, Song HS, Seo JH, Ryoo HM, Lee SA, Yoon SY, Kim CS, Kim YT, Kim SY, Jin MR, Ro J. An Open-Label, Randomized, Parallel, Phase III Trial Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Polymeric Micelle-Formulated Paclitaxel Compared to Conventional Cremophor EL-Based Paclitaxel for Recurrent or Metastatic HER2-Negative Breast Cancer. Cancer Res Treat. 2017 Jul;49(3):569-577. Epub 2016 Sep 12. link to original article link to PMC article contains protocol PubMed NCT00876486

Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab

back to top

Regimen

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Miller et al. 2007 (ECOG E2100)	2001-2004	Phase 3 (E-RT-esc)	Paclitaxel	Superior PFS Median PFS: 11.8 vs 5.9 mo (HR 0.60)
Robert et al. 2011 (SUN 1094)	2006-2009	Phase 3 (C)	Paclitaxel & Sunitinib	Did not meet primary endpoint of PFS
Lang et al. 2013 (TURANDOT)	2008-2010	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	Capecitabine & Bevacizumab	Non-inferior OS¹
Rugo et al. 2015 (CALGB 40502/NCCTG N063H)	2008-2011	Phase 3 (C)	1. Ixabepilone & Bevacizumab	Superior PFS
Rugo et al. 2015 (CALGB 40502/NCCTG N063H)	2008-2011	Phase 3 (C)	2. nab-Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab	Might have superior PFS
Rochlitz et al. 2016 (SAKK 24/09)	2010-2012	Phase 3 (C)	Capecitabine, Cyclophosphamide, Bevacizumab	Did not meet secondary endpoint of PFS
Miles et al. 2016 (MERiDiAN)	2012-2013	Phase 3 (E-esc)	Paclitaxel	Superior PFS Median PFS: 11 vs 8.8 mo (HR 0.68, 99% CI 0.51-0.91)

¹Reported efficacy for TURANDOT is based on the 2016 update.
Note: ECOG E2100 was the basis for accelerated approval of bevacizumab in breast cancer.

Chemotherapy

Paclitaxel (Taxol) 90 mg/m² IV over 60 minutes once per day on days 1, 8, 15

Targeted therapy

Bevacizumab (Avastin) 10 mg/kg IV once per day on days 1 & 15

28-day cycles

References

ECOG E2100: Miller K, Wang M, Gralow J, Dickler M, Cobleigh M, Perez EA, Shenkier T, Cella D, Davidson NE. Paclitaxel plus bevacizumab versus paclitaxel alone for metastatic breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007 Dec 27;357(26):2666-76. link to original article PubMed NCT00028990
SUN 1094: Robert NJ, Saleh MN, Paul D, Generali D, Gressot L, Copur MS, Brufsky AM, Minton SE, Giguere JK, Smith JW 2nd, Richards PD, Gernhardt D, Huang X, Liau KF, Kern KA, Davis J. Sunitinib plus paclitaxel versus bevacizumab plus paclitaxel for first-line treatment of patients with advanced breast cancer: a phase III, randomized, open-label trial. Clin Breast Cancer. 2011 Apr;11(2):82-92. Epub 2011 Apr 11. Erratum in: Clin Breast Cancer. 2011 Aug;11(4):273. link to original article link to PMC article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00373256
TURANDOT: Lang I, Brodowicz T, Ryvo L, Kahan Z, Greil R, Beslija S, Stemmer SM, Kaufman B, Zvirbule Z, Steger GG, Melichar B, Pienkowski T, Sirbu D, Messinger D, Zielinski C; Central European Cooperative Oncology Group. Bevacizumab plus paclitaxel versus bevacizumab plus capecitabine as first-line treatment for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: interim efficacy results of the randomised, open-label, non-inferiority, phase 3 TURANDOT trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013 Feb;14(2):125-33. Epub 2013 Jan 10. link to original article PubMed NCT00600340
1. Update: Zielinski C, Láng I, Inbar M, Kahán Z, Greil R, Beslija S, Stemmer SM, Zvirbule Z, Steger GG, Melichar B, Pienkowski T, Sirbu D, Petruzelka L, Eniu A, Nisenbaum B, Dank M, Anghel R, Messinger D, Brodowicz T; TURANDOT investigators. Bevacizumab plus paclitaxel versus bevacizumab plus capecitabine as first-line treatment for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (TURANDOT): primary endpoint results of a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016 Sep;17(9):1230-9. Epub 2016 Aug 5. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
CALGB 40502/NCCTG N063H: Rugo HS, Barry WT, Moreno-Aspitia A, Lyss AP, Cirrincione C, Leung E, Mayer EL, Naughton M, Toppmeyer D, Carey LA, Perez EA, Hudis C, Winer EP. Randomized phase III trial of paclitaxel once per week compared with nanoparticle albumin-bound nab-paclitaxel once per week or ixabepilone with bevacizumab as first-line chemotherapy for locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer: CALGB 40502/NCCTG N063H (Alliance). J Clin Oncol. 2015 Jul 20;33(21):2361-9. Epub 2015 Jun 8. link to original article contains verified protocol link to PMC article PubMed NCT00785291
SAKK 24/09: Rochlitz C, Bigler M, von Moos R, Bernhard J, Matter-Walstra K, Wicki A, Zaman K, Anchisi S, Küng M, Na KJ, Bärtschi D, Borner M, Rordorf T, Rauch D, Müller A, Ruhstaller T, Vetter M, Trojan A, Hasler-Strub U, Cathomas R, Winterhalder R; Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK). SAKK 24/09: safety and tolerability of bevacizumab plus paclitaxel vs. bevacizumab plus metronomic cyclophosphamide and capecitabine as first-line therapy in patients with HER2-negative advanced stage breast cancer - a multicenter, randomized phase III trial. BMC Cancer. 2016 Oct 10;16(1):780. link to original article link to PMC article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT01131195
MERiDiAN: Miles D, Cameron D, Bondarenko I, Manzyuk L, Alcedo JC, Lopez RI, Im SA, Canon JL, Shparyk Y, Yardley DA, Masuda N, Ro J, Denduluri N, Hubeaux S, Quah C, Bais C, O'Shaughnessy J. Bevacizumab plus paclitaxel versus placebo plus paclitaxel as first-line therapy for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MERiDiAN): A double-blind placebo-controlled randomised phase III trial with prospective biomarker evaluation. Eur J Cancer. 2017 Jan;70:146-155. Epub 2016 Nov 4. link to original article contains protocol PubMed NCT01663727
1. Update: Miles D, Cameron D, Hilton M, Garcia J, O'Shaughnessy J. Overall survival in MERiDiAN, a double-blind placebo-controlled randomised phase III trial evaluating first-line bevacizumab plus paclitaxel for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2018 Feb;90:153-155. Epub 2017 Nov 23. link to original article PubMed

Paclitaxel & Vinorelbine

back to top

Regimen

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence
Romero Acuña et al. 1999	1995-1997	Phase II

Chemotherapy

Paclitaxel (Taxol) 135 mg/m² IV over 3 hours once on day 1, given second
Vinorelbine (Navelbine) 30 mg/m² IV over 20 minutes once per day on days 1 & 8

28-day cycles

References

Romero Acuña L, Langhi M, Pérez J, Romero Acuña J, Machiavelli M, Lacava J, Vallejo C, Romero A, Fasce H, Ortiz E, Grasso S, Amato S, Rodríguez R, Barbieri M, Leone B. Vinorelbine and paclitaxel as first-line chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1999 Jan;17(1):74-81. link to original article contains protocol PubMed

nab-Paclitaxel monotherapy

back to top

Example orders

Example orders for Paclitaxel, nanoparticle albumin-bound (Abraxane) in breast cancer

Regimen variant #1, 100 mg/m², 3 weeks out of 4

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Gradishar et al. 2009	2005-2006	Randomized Phase II (E-switch-ic)	1. Docetaxel 2. nab-Paclitaxel; weekly, 150 mg/m² 3. nab-Paclitaxel; q3wk	Did not meet primary endpoint of ORR

Chemotherapy

Paclitaxel, nanoparticle albumin-bound (Abraxane) 100 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1, 8, 15

28-day cycles

Regimen variant #2, 150 mg/m² weekly, 3 weeks out of 4

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Gradishar et al. 2009	2005-2006	Randomized Phase II (E-switch-ic)	1. Docetaxel 2. nab-Paclitaxel; weekly, 100 mg/m² 3. nab-Paclitaxel; q3wk	Did not meet primary endpoint of ORR

Chemotherapy

Paclitaxel, nanoparticle albumin-bound (Abraxane) 150 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1, 8, 15

28-day cycles

Regimen variant #3, 260 mg/m² q3wk

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Gradishar et al. 2005 (CA012-0)	2001-2002	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	Paclitaxel; q3wk	Superior TTP
Robert et al. 2011 (RIBBON-1)	2005-2007	Phase 3 (C)	nab-Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab	Inferior PFS

Chemotherapy

Paclitaxel, nanoparticle albumin-bound (Abraxane) 260 mg/m² IV over 30 minutes once on day 1

Supportive medications

CA012-0: No corticosteroid or antihistamine premedication

21-day cycles

Regimen variant #4, 300 mg/m² q3wk

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Gradishar et al. 2009	2005-2006	Randomized Phase II (E-switch-ic)	1. Docetaxel 2. nab-Paclitaxel; weekly, 100 mg/m² 3. nab-Paclitaxel; weekly, 150 mg/m²	Did not meet primary endpoint of ORR

Chemotherapy

Paclitaxel, nanoparticle albumin-bound (Abraxane) 300 mg/m² IV over 30 minutes once on day 1

21-day cycles

References

CA012-0: Gradishar WJ, Tjulandin S, Davidson N, Shaw H, Desai N, Bhar P, Hawkins M, O'Shaughnessy J. Phase III trial of nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel compared with polyethylated castor oil-based paclitaxel in women with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Nov 1;23(31):7794-803. Epub 2005 Sep 19. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00046527
Gradishar WJ, Krasnojon D, Cheporov S, Makhson AN, Manikhas GM, Clawson A, Bhar P. Significantly longer progression-free survival with nab-paclitaxel compared with docetaxel as first-line therapy for metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009 Aug 1;27(22):3611-9. Epub 2009 May 26. Erratum in: J Clin Oncol. 2011 Jul 1;29(19):2739. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
RIBBON-1: Robert NJ, Diéras V, Glaspy J, Brufsky AM, Bondarenko I, Lipatov ON, Perez EA, Yardley DA, Chan SY, Zhou X, Phan SC, O'Shaughnessy J. RIBBON-1: randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial of chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab for first-line treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Apr 1;29(10):1252-60. Epub 2011 Mar 7. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00262067

Paclitaxel, nanoparticle albumin-bound & Bevacizumab

back to top

Example orders

Example orders for Paclitaxel, nanoparticle albumin-bound & Bevacizumab in breast cancer

Regimen variant #1, 150 mg/m², 3 weeks out of 4

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Rugo et al. 2015 (CALGB 40502/NCCTG N063H)	2008-2011	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	1. Ixabepilone & Bevacizumab	Not reported
Rugo et al. 2015 (CALGB 40502/NCCTG N063H)	2008-2011	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	2. Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab	Might have inferior PFS

Chemotherapy

Paclitaxel, nanoparticle albumin-bound (Abraxane) 150 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1, 8, 15

Targeted therapy

Bevacizumab (Avastin) 10 mg/kg IV once per day on days 1 & 15

28-day cycles

Regimen variant #2, 260 mg/m² q3wk

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Robert et al. 2011 (RIBBON-1)	2005-2007	Phase 3 (E-esc)	nab-Paclitaxel	Superior PFS (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.52-0.80)

Chemotherapy

Paclitaxel, nanoparticle albumin-bound (Abraxane) 260 mg/m² IV once on day 1

Targeted therapy

Bevacizumab (Avastin) 15 mg/kg IV once on day 1

21-day cycles

References

RIBBON-1: Robert NJ, Diéras V, Glaspy J, Brufsky AM, Bondarenko I, Lipatov ON, Perez EA, Yardley DA, Chan SY, Zhou X, Phan SC, O'Shaughnessy J. RIBBON-1: randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial of chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab for first-line treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Apr 1;29(10):1252-60. Epub 2011 Mar 7. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00262067
CALGB 40502/NCCTG N063H: Rugo HS, Barry WT, Moreno-Aspitia A, Lyss AP, Cirrincione C, Leung E, Mayer EL, Naughton M, Toppmeyer D, Carey LA, Perez EA, Hudis C, Winer EP. Randomized phase III trial of paclitaxel once per week compared with nanoparticle albumin-bound nab-paclitaxel once per week or ixabepilone with bevacizumab as first-line chemotherapy for locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer: CALGB 40502/NCCTG N063H (Alliance). J Clin Oncol. 2015 Jul 20;33(21):2361-9. Epub 2015 Jun 8. link to original article link to PMC article PubMed NCT00785291

Pemetrexed monotherapy

back to top

Regimen variant #1, 500 mg/m²

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence
Gomez et al. 2006	2001-2002	Phase II

Patients in the study were "chemotherapy-naïve, with advanced (T4 and N0-N2, M0, M1) breast cancer."

Chemotherapy

Pemetrexed (Alimta) 500 mg/m² IV over 10 minutes once on day 1

Supportive medications

Dexamethasone (Decadron) 4 mg PO twice per day on days -1 to 2 (3 days)
Folic acid (Folate) 350 to 1000 mcg PO once per day, to start 5 to 7 days prior to start of Pemetrexed (Alimta), to continue throughout therapy
Cyanocobalamin (Vitamin B12) 1000 mcg IM every 9 weeks, the first dose given before the study's pretreatment biopsy, to continue throughout therapy

21-day cycle for up to 3 cycles

Regimen variant #2, 600 mg/m²

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence
Robert et al. 2011	2005-2006	Phase II

Chemotherapy

Pemetrexed (Alimta) 600 mg/m² IV once on day 1

Supportive medications

Dexamethasone (Decadron) 4 mg PO twice per day on days -1 to 2 (3 days)
Folic acid (Folate) 350 to 1000 mcg PO once per day, to start at least 5 days prior to start of Pemetrexed (Alimta), to continue throughout therapy, and until 3 weeks after the last dose of pemetrexed
Cyanocobalamin (Vitamin B12) 1000 mcg IM every 8 to 10 weeks, the first dose given at least 1 week prior to start of Pemetrexed (Alimta), to continue throughout therapy, and until 3 weeks after the last dose of pemetrexed

14-day cycles

References

Gomez HL, Santillana SL, Vallejos CS, Velarde R, Sanchez J, Wang X, Bauer NL, Hockett RD, Chen VJ, Niyikiza C, Hanauske AR. A phase II trial of pemetrexed in advanced breast cancer: clinical response and association with molecular target expression. Clin Cancer Res. 2006 Feb 1;12(3 Pt 1):832-8. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
Robert NJ, Conkling PR, O'Rourke MA, Kuefler PR, McIntyre KJ, Zhan F, Asmar L, Wang Y, Shonukan OO, O'Shaughnessy JA. Results of a phase II study of pemetrexed as first-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced or metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011 Feb;126(1):101-8. Epub 2010 Dec 25. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed

S-1 monotherapy

back to top

Regimen

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy	Comparative Toxicity
Takashima et al. 2015 (SELECT BC)	2006-2010	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	1. Docetaxel 2. Paclitaxel	Seems to have non-inferior OS	Superior EQ-5D score

Chemotherapy

Tegafur, gimeracil, oteracil (S-1) as follows:
- BSA less than 1.25 m²: 40 mg PO twice per day on days 1 to 28
- BSA at least 1.25 m² and less than 1.5 m²: 50 mg PO twice per day on days 1 to 28
- BSA 1.5 m² or more: 60 mg PO twice per day on days 1 to 28

42-day cycles

References

SELECT BC: Takashima T, Mukai H, Hara F, Matsubara N, Saito T, Takano T, Park Y, Toyama T, Hozumi Y, Tsurutani J, Imoto S, Watanabe T, Sagara Y, Nishimura R, Shimozuma K, Ohashi Y; SELECT BC Study Group. Taxanes versus S-1 as the first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (SELECT BC): an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016 Jan;17(1):90-8. Epub 2015 Nov 27. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed UMIN C000000416
1. HRQoL analysis: Shiroiwa T, Fukuda T, Shimozuma K, Mouri M, Hagiwara Y, Doihara H, Akabane H, Kashiwaba M, Watanabe T, Ohashi Y, Mukai H. Long-term health status as measured by EQ-5D among patients with metastatic breast cancer: comparison of first-line oral S-1 and taxane therapies in the randomized phase III SELECT BC trial. Qual Life Res. 2017 Feb;26(2):445-453. Epub 2016 Aug 12. link to original article link to PMC article PubMed

Capecitabine & Docetaxel (TX)

back to top

TX: Taxotere (Docetaxel) & Xeloda (Capecitabine)
CD: Capecitabine & Docetaxel

Regimen variant #1, 1900/75

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Mavroudis et al. 2009 (HORG CT/02.09)	2002-2007	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	DE	Did not meet primary endpoint of TTP

Chemotherapy

Capecitabine (Xeloda) 950 mg/m² PO twice per day on days 1 to 14
Docetaxel (Taxotere) 75 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycles

Regimen variant #2, 2000/75, limited duration of docetaxel

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Wang et al. 2015 (ML25241)	2010-2013	Phase 3 (C)	NX	Inconclusive whether non-inferior PFS

Note: only patients without progression proceeded to the capecitabine maintenance phase.

Chemotherapy

Capecitabine (Xeloda) 1000 mg/m² PO twice per day on days 1 to 14
Docetaxel (Taxotere) as follows:
- Cycles 1 to 6 up to 8: 75 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycles

Regimen variant #3, 2000/75, indefinite

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Seidman et al. 2010 (B9E-MC-S273)	2002-2008	Phase 3 (C)	GD	Did not meet primary endpoint of TTP

Chemotherapy

Capecitabine (Xeloda) 1000 mg/m² PO twice per day on days 1 to 14
Docetaxel (Taxotere) 75 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycles

Subsequent treatment

Upon progression: Gemcitabine

References

HORG CT/02.09: Mavroudis D, Papakotoulas P, Ardavanis A, Syrigos K, Kakolyris S, Ziras N, Kouroussis C, Malamos N, Polyzos A, Christophyllakis C, Kentepozidis N, Georgoulias V; Hellenic Oncology Research Group. Randomized phase III trial comparing docetaxel plus epirubicin versus docetaxel plus capecitabine as first-line treatment in women with advanced breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2010 Jan;21(1):48-54. Epub 2009 Nov 11. link to original article contains protocol PubMed NCT00429871
B9E-MC-S273: Seidman AD, Brufsky A, Ansari RH, Hart LL, Stein RS, Schwartzberg LS, Stewart JF, Russell CA, Chen SC, Fein LE, De La Cruz Vargas JA, Kim SB, Cavalheiro J, Zhao L, Gill JF, Obasaju CK, Orlando M, Tai DF. Phase III trial of gemcitabine plus docetaxel versus capecitabine plus docetaxel with planned crossover to the alternate single agent in metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2011 May;22(5):1094-101. Epub 2010 Nov 17. link to original article contains protocol PubMed NCT00191438
ML25241: Wang J, Xu B, Yuan P, Ma F, Li Q, Zhang P, Cai R, Fan Y, Luo Y, Li Q. Capecitabine combined with docetaxel versus vinorelbine followed by capecitabine maintenance medication for first-line treatment of patients with advanced breast cancer: phase 3 randomized trial. Cancer. 2015 Oct 1;121(19):3412-21. Epub 2015 Jun 19. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT01126138

Epirubicin & Vinorelbine (VE)

back to top

VE: Vinorelbine & Epirubicin

Regimen

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Ejlertsen et al. 2004 (SBG 9403)	1995-1999	Phase 3 (E-esc)	Epirubicin	Seems to have superior PFS

Chemotherapy

Vinorelbine (Navelbine) 25 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8
Epirubicin (Ellence) 90 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for up to 18 cycles (1 year)

References

SBG 9403: Ejlertsen B, Mouridsen HT, Langkjer ST, Andersen J, Sjöström J, Kjaer M; Scandinavian Breast Group. Phase III study of intravenous vinorelbine in combination with epirubicin versus epirubicin alone in patients with advanced breast cancer: a Scandinavian Breast Group Trial (SBG9403). J Clin Oncol. 2004 Jun 15;22(12):2313-20. link to original article contains protocol PubMed

Metastatic disease, maintenance after first-line therapy

Bevacizumab monotherapy

back to top

Regimen

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Robert et al. 2011 (RIBBON-1)	2005-2007	Non-randomized portion of RCT
Miles et al. 2010 (AVADO)	2006-2007	Non-randomized portion of RCT
Gligorov et al. 2014 (IMELDA)	2009-2011	Phase 3 (C)	Capecitabine & Bevacizumab	Inferior OS

Preceding treatment

AVADO: Docetaxel & Bev x 9
RIBBON-1: AC & Bev x 8 or EC & Bev x 8 or FAC & Bev x 8 or FEC & Bev x 8
IMELDA: Docetaxel & Bev x 3 to 6

Targeted therapy

Bevacizumab (Avastin) 15 mg/kg IV once on day 1

21-day cycles

References

AVADO: Miles DW, Chan A, Dirix LY, Cortés J, Pivot X, Tomczak P, Delozier T, Sohn JH, Provencher L, Puglisi F, Harbeck N, Steger GG, Schneeweiss A, Wardley AM, Chlistalla A, Romieu G. Phase III study of bevacizumab plus docetaxel compared with placebo plus docetaxel for the first-line treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010 Jul 10;28(20):3239-47. Epub 2010 May 24. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00333775
RIBBON-1: Robert NJ, Diéras V, Glaspy J, Brufsky AM, Bondarenko I, Lipatov ON, Perez EA, Yardley DA, Chan SY, Zhou X, Phan SC, O'Shaughnessy J. RIBBON-1: randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial of chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab for first-line treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Apr 1;29(10):1252-60. Epub 2011 Mar 7. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00262067
IMELDA: Gligorov J, Doval D, Bines J, Alba E, Cortes P, Pierga JY, Gupta V, Costa R, Srock S, de Ducla S, Freudensprung U, Mustacchi G. Maintenance capecitabine and bevacizumab versus bevacizumab alone after initial first-line bevacizumab and docetaxel for patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (IMELDA): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014 Nov;15(12):1351-60. Epub 2014 Sep 28. link to original article contains protocol PubMed NCT00929240

Capecitabine & Bevacizumab

back to top

Regimen

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Gligorov et al. 2014 (IMELDA)	2009-2011	Phase 3 (E-esc)	Bevacizumab	Superior OS (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.26-0.69)

Preceding treatment

Docetaxel & Bev x 3 to 6

Chemotherapy

Capecitabine (Xeloda) 1000 mg/m² PO twice per day on days 1 to 14

Targeted therapy

Bevacizumab (Avastin) 15 mg/kg IV once on day 1

21-day cycles

References

IMELDA: Gligorov J, Doval D, Bines J, Alba E, Cortes P, Pierga JY, Gupta V, Costa R, Srock S, de Ducla S, Freudensprung U, Mustacchi G. Maintenance capecitabine and bevacizumab versus bevacizumab alone after initial first-line bevacizumab and docetaxel for patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (IMELDA): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014 Nov;15(12):1351-60. Epub 2014 Sep 28. link to original article contains protocol PubMed NCT00929240

Gemcitabine & Paclitaxel

back to top

GT: Gemcitabine & Taxol (Paclitaxel)
PG: Paclitaxel & Gemcitabine

Regimen

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Park et al. 2013 (KCSG-BR07-02)	2007-2010	Phase 3 (E-esc)	Observation	Seems to have superior OS

Preceding treatment

PG x 6

Chemotherapy

Gemcitabine (Gemzar) 1250 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8, given second on day 1
Paclitaxel (Taxol) 175 mg/m² IV once on day 1, given first

21-day cycles

References

KCSG-BR07-02: Park YH, Jung KH, Im SA, Sohn JH, Ro J, Ahn JH, Kim SB, Nam BH, Oh DY, Han SW, Lee S, Park IH, Lee KS, Kim JH, Kang SY, Lee MH, Park HS, Ahn JS, Im YH. Phase III, multicenter, randomized trial of maintenance chemotherapy versus observation in patients with metastatic breast cancer after achieving disease control with six cycles of gemcitabine plus paclitaxel as first-line chemotherapy: KCSG-BR07-02. J Clin Oncol. 2013 May 10;31(14):1732-9. Epub 2013 Apr 8. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00561119

Metastatic disease, subsequent lines of chemotherapy

Abemaciclib monotherapy

back to top

Regimen

FDA-recommended dose

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Efficacy
Dickler et al. 2017 (MONARCH 1)	2014-2015	Phase II	20% (95% CI 13-27.5)

Targeted therapy

Abemaciclib (Verzenio) 200 mg PO twice per day

Continued indefinitely

References

MONARCH 1: Dickler MN, Tolaney SM, Rugo HS, Cortés J, Diéras V, Patt D, Wildiers H, Hudis CA, O'Shaughnessy J, Zamora E, Yardley DA, Frenzel M, Koustenis A, Baselga J. MONARCH 1, a phase II study of abemaciclib, a CDK4 and CDK6 Inhibitor, as a single agent, in patients with refractory HR(+)/HER2(-) metastatic breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2017 Sep 1;23(17):5218-5224. Epub 2017 May 22. link to original article link to PMC article contains protocol PubMed NCT02102490

Capecitabine monotherapy

back to top

Regimen variant #1, 1000 mg/m² PO twice per day

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Brufsky et al. 2011 (RIBBON-2)	2006-2008	Phase 3 (C)	1. Capecitabine & Bevacizumab 2. Docetaxel & Bevacizumab 3. Gemcitabine & Bevacizumab 4. Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab 5. nab-Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab 6. Vinorelbine & Bevacizumab	Inferior PFS
Barrios et al. 2010 (SUN 1107)	2006-2009	Phase 3 (C)	Sunitinib	Superior PFS Median PFS: 4.2 vs 2.8 mo (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.53-0.86)
Baselga et al. 2017 (RESILIENCE)	2010-NR	Phase 3 (C)	Capecitabine & Sorafenib	Did not meet primary endpoint of PFS
von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)	2011-2013	Phase 3 (C)	1. Capecitabine & Bevacizumab 2. Docetaxel & Bevacizumab 3. Doxorubicin & Bevacizumab 4. NPLD & Bevacizumab 5. PLD & Bevacizumab 6. Gemcitabine & Bevacizumab 7. nab-Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab	Inferior PFS

Note: in SUN 1107, this dosage was used for patients older than 65 years.

Chemotherapy

Capecitabine (Xeloda) 1000 mg/m² PO twice per day on days 1 to 14

21-day cycles

Regimen variant #2, 1250 mg/m² PO twice per day

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Blum et al. 1999	1996	Phase II (RT)
Reichardt et al. 2003	1999-2000	Phase II
Miller et al. 2005 (AVF2119g)	2000-2002	Phase 3 (C)	Capecitabine & Bevacizumab	Did not meet primary endpoint of PFS
Pallis et al. 2011 (HORG CT/02.11)	2002-2008	Phase 3 (C)	Gemcitabine & Vinorelbine	Did not meet primary endpoint of PFS
Thomas et al. 2007 (CA163-046)	2003-2006	Phase 3 (C)	Capecitabine & Ixabepilone	Inferior PFS
Sparano et al. 2010 (CA163-048)	2003-2006	Phase 3 (C)	Capecitabine & Ixabepilone	Might have inferior OS
Barrios et al. 2010 (SUN 1107)	2006-2009	Phase 3 (C)	Sunitinib	Superior PFS Median PFS: 4.2 vs 2.8 mo (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.53-0.86)
Kaufman et al. 2015 (E7389-G000-301)	2006-2009	Phase 3 (C)	Eribulin	Might have inferior OS
Crown et al. 2013 (A6181099)	2007-2009	Phase 3 (C)	Capecitabine & Sunitinib	Did not meet primary endpoint of PFS
Yamamoto et al. 2016 (JO21095)	2008-2010	Non-randomized portion of RCT
Martin et al. 2018 (L00070 IN 305 B0)	2009-2011	Phase 3 (C)	Capecitabine & Vinflunine	Seems to have inferior PFS
Park et al. 2018 (PROCEED)	2011-2016	Phase 3 (C)	CAPIRI	Did not meet primary endpoint of PFS
Zhang et al. 2017 (BG01-1323L)	2014-2015	Phase 3 (C)	Capecitabine & Utidelone	Seems to have inferior OS¹

¹Reported efficacy for BG01-1323L is based on the 2020 update.
Note: To our knowledge, this regimen was not tested as an experimental arm in an RCT prior to becoming a standard comparator arm in this context.

Preceding treatment

JO21095: Docetaxel, with PD

Chemotherapy

Capecitabine (Xeloda) 1250 mg/m² PO twice per day on days 1 to 14

21-day cycles

References

Blum JL, Jones SE, Buzdar AU, Mucci LoRusso P, Kuter I, Vogel C, Osterwalder B, Burger HU, Stoner Brown C, Griffin T. Multicenter phase II study of capecitabine in paclitaxel-refractory metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1999 Feb;17(2):485-93. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
Reichardt P, Von Minckwitz G, Thuss-Patience PC, Jonat W, Kölbl H, Jänicke F, Kieback DG, Kuhn W, Schindler AE, Mohrmann S, Kaufmann M, Lück HJ. Multicenter phase II study of oral capecitabine (Xeloda) in patients with metastatic breast cancer relapsing after treatment with a taxane-containing therapy. Ann Oncol. 2003 Aug;14(8):1227-33. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
AVF2119g: Miller KD, Chap LI, Holmes FA, Cobleigh MA, Marcom PK, Fehrenbacher L, Dickler M, Overmoyer BA, Reimann JD, Sing AP, Langmuir V, Rugo HS. Randomized phase III trial of capecitabine compared with bevacizumab plus capecitabine in patients with previously treated metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Feb 1;23(4):792-9. link to original article contains protocol PubMed NCT00109239
CA163-046: Thomas ES, Gomez HL, Li RK, Chung HC, Fein LE, Chan VF, Jassem J, Pivot XB, Klimovsky JV, de Mendoza FH, Xu B, Campone M, Lerzo GL, Peck RA, Mukhopadhyay P, Vahdat LT, Roché HH. Ixabepilone plus capecitabine for metastatic breast cancer progressing after anthracycline and taxane treatment. J Clin Oncol. 2007 Nov 20;25(33):5210-7. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
1. Update: Hortobagyi GN, Gomez HL, Li RK, Chung HC, Fein LE, Chan VF, Jassem J, Lerzo GL, Pivot XB, Hurtado de Mendoza F, Xu B, Vahdat LT, Peck RA, Mukhopadhyay P, Roché HH. Analysis of overall survival from a phase III study of ixabepilone plus capecitabine versus capecitabine in patients with MBC resistant to anthracyclines and taxanes. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010 Jul;122(2):409-18. Epub 2010 May 8. link to original article PubMed
SUN 1107: Barrios CH, Liu MC, Lee SC, Vanlemmens L, Ferrero JM, Tabei T, Pivot X, Iwata H, Aogi K, Lugo-Quintana R, Harbeck N, Brickman MJ, Zhang K, Kern KA, Martin M. Phase III randomized trial of sunitinib versus capecitabine in patients with previously treated HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010 May;121(1):121-31. Epub 2010 Mar 26. link to original article link to PMC article contains protocol PubMed
CA163-048: Sparano JA, Vrdoljak E, Rixe O, Xu B, Manikhas A, Medina C, Da Costa SC, Ro J, Rubio G, Rondinon M, Perez Manga G, Peck R, Poulart V, Conte P. Randomized phase III trial of ixabepilone plus capecitabine versus capecitabine in patients with metastatic breast cancer previously treated with an anthracycline and a taxane. J Clin Oncol. 2010 Jul 10;28(20):3256-63. link to original article contains verified protocol link to PMC article PubMed NCT00082433
HORG CT/02.11: Pallis AG, Boukovinas I, Ardavanis A, Varthalitis I, Malamos N, Georgoulias V, Mavroudis D; Hellenic Oncology Research Group. A multicenter randomized phase III trial of vinorelbine/gemcitabine doublet versus capecitabine monotherapy in anthracycline- and taxane-pretreated women with metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2012 May;23(5):1164-9. Epub 2011 Sep 21. link to original article contains protocol PubMed NCT00431106
RIBBON-2: Brufsky AM, Hurvitz S, Perez E, Swamy R, Valero V, O'Neill V, Rugo HS. RIBBON-2: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy for second-line treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Nov 10;29(32):4286-93. Epub 2011 Oct 11. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00281697
A6181099: Crown JP, Diéras V, Staroslawska E, Yardley DA, Bachelot T, Davidson N, Wildiers H, Fasching PA, Capitain O, Ramos M, Greil R, Cognetti F, Fountzilas G, Blasinska-Morawiec M, Liedtke C, Kreienberg R, Miller WH Jr, Tassell V, Huang X, Paolini J, Kern KA, Romieu G. Phase III trial of sunitinib in combination with capecitabine versus capecitabine monotherapy for the treatment of patients with pretreated metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2013 Aug 10;31(23):2870-8. Epub 2013 Jul 15. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00435409
TANIA: von Minckwitz G, Puglisi F, Cortes J, Vrdoljak E, Marschner N, Zielinski C, Villanueva C, Romieu G, Lang I, Ciruelos E, De Laurentiis M, Veyret C, de Ducla S, Freudensprung U, Srock S, Gligorov J. Bevacizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone as second-line treatment for patients with HER2-negative locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer after first-line treatment with bevacizumab plus chemotherapy (TANIA): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014 Oct;15(11):1269-78. Epub 2014 Sep 28. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT01250379
1. Update: Vrdoljak E, Marschner N, Zielinski C, Gligorov J, Cortes J, Puglisi F, Aapro M, Fallowfield L, Fontana A, Inbar M, Kahan Z, Welt A, Lévy C, Brain E, Pivot X, Putzu C, González Martín A, de Ducla S, Easton V, von Minckwitz G. Final results of the TANIA randomised phase III trial of bevacizumab after progression on first-line bevacizumab therapy for HER2-negative locally recurrent/metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2016 Nov;27(11):2046-2052. Epub 2016 Aug 8. link to original article PubMed
E7389-G000-301: Kaufman PA, Awada A, Twelves C, Yelle L, Perez EA, Velikova G, Olivo MS, He Y, Dutcus CE, Cortes J. Phase III open-label randomized study of eribulin mesylate versus capecitabine in patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer previously treated with an anthracycline and a taxane. J Clin Oncol. 2015 Feb 20;33(6):594-601. Epub 2015 Jan 20. link to original article link to PMC article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00337103
JO21095: Yamamoto D, Sato N, Rai Y, Yamamoto Y, Saito M, Iwata H, Masuda N, Oura S, Watanabe J, Hattori S, Matsuura Y, Kuroi K. Efficacy and safety of low-dose capecitabine plus docetaxel versus single-agent docetaxel in patients with anthracycline-pretreated HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: results from the randomized phase III JO21095 trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017 Feb;161(3):473-482. Epub 2016 Dec 22. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
BG01-1323L: Zhang P, Sun T, Zhang Q, Yuan Z, Jiang Z, Wang XJ, Cui S, Teng Y, Hu XC, Yang J, Pan H, Tong Z, Li H, Yao Q, Wang Y, Yin Y, Sun P, Zheng H, Cheng J, Lu J, Zhang B, Geng C, Liu J, Peng R, Yan M, Zhang S, Huang J, Tang L, Qiu R, Xu B; BG01-1323L study group. Utidelone plus capecitabine versus capecitabine alone for heavily pretreated metastatic breast cancer refractory to anthracyclines and taxanes: a multicentre, open-label, superiority, phase 3, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017 Mar;18(3):371-383. Epub 2017 Feb 11. link to original article contains protocol PubMed NCT02253459
1. Update: Xu B, Sun T, Zhang Q, Zhang P, Yuan Z, Jiang Z, Wang X, Cui S, Teng Y, Hu XC, Yang J, Pan H, Tong Z, Li H, Yao Q, Wang Y, Yin Y, Sun P, Zheng H, Cheng J, Lu J, Zhang B, Geng C, Liu J, Shen K, Yu S, Li H, Tang L, Qiu R; study group of BG01-1323L. Efficacy of utidelone plus capecitabine versus capecitabine for heavily pretreated, anthracycline- and taxane-refractory metastatic breast cancer: final analysis of overall survival in a phase III randomised controlled trial. Ann Oncol. 2021 Feb;32(2):218-228. Epub 2020 Nov 11. link to original article PubMed
RESILIENCE: Baselga J, Zamagni C, Gómez P, Bermejo B, Nagai SE, Melichar B, Chan A, Mángel L, Bergh J, Costa F, Gómez HL, Gradishar WJ, Hudis CA, Rapoport BL, Roché H, Maeda P, Huang L, Meinhardt G, Zhang J, Schwartzberg LS. RESILIENCE: phase III randomized, double-blind trial comparing sorafenib with capecitabine versus placebo with capecitabine in locally advanced or metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer. 2017 Dec;17(8):585-594.e4. Epub 2017 May 22. link to original article contains protocol PubMed NCT01234337
PROCEED: Park IH, Im SA, Jung KH, Sohn JH, Park YH, Lee KS, Sim SH, Park KH, Kim JH, Nam BH, Kim HJ, Kim TY, Lee KH, Kim SB, Ahn JH, Lee S, Ro J. Randomized open label phase III trial of irinotecan plus capecitabine versus capecitabine monotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer previously treated with anthracycline and taxane: PROCEED trial (KCSG BR 11-01). Cancer Res Treat. 2019 Jan;51(1):43-52. Epub 2018 Feb 14. link to original article contains protocol link to PMC article PubMed NCT01501669
L00070 IN 305 B0: Martin M, Campone M, Bondarenko I, Sakaeva D, Krishnamurthy S, Roman L, Lebedeva L, Vedovato JC, Aapro M. Randomised phase III trial of vinflunine plus capecitabine versus capecitabine alone in patients with advanced breast cancer previously treated with an anthracycline and resistant to taxane. Ann Oncol. 2018 May 1;29(5):1195-1202. link to original article contains protocol PubMed NCT01095003
EVER-132-002: NCT04639986
TROPICS-02: NCT03901339

Capecitabine & Bevacizumab

back to top

Regimen variant #1, 2000/15

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Brufsky et al. 2011 (RIBBON-2)	2006-2008	Phase 3 (E-esc)	1. Capecitabine 2. Docetaxel 3. Gemcitabine 4. Paclitaxel 5. nab-Paclitaxel 6. Vinorelbine	Superior PFS Median PFS: 7.2 vs 5.1 mo (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.64-0.93)
von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)	2011-2013	Phase 3 (E-esc)	1. Capecitabine 2. Docetaxel 3. Doxorubicin 4. NPLD 5. PLD 6. Gemcitabine 7. nab-Paclitaxel	Superior PFS Median PFS: 6.3 vs 4.2 mo (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61-0.93)

Chemotherapy

Capecitabine (Xeloda) 1000 mg/m² PO twice per day on days 1 to 14

Targeted therapy

Bevacizumab (Avastin) 15 mg/kg IV once on day 1

21-day cycles

Regimen variant #2, 2500/15

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Miller et al. 2005 (AVF2119g)	2000-2002	Phase 3 (E-esc)	Capecitabine	Did not meet primary endpoint of PFS

Chemotherapy

Capecitabine (Xeloda) 1250 mg/m² PO twice per day on days 1 to 14

Targeted therapy

Bevacizumab (Avastin) 15 mg/kg IV once on day 1

21-day cycles

References

AVF2119g: Miller KD, Chap LI, Holmes FA, Cobleigh MA, Marcom PK, Fehrenbacher L, Dickler M, Overmoyer BA, Reimann JD, Sing AP, Langmuir V, Rugo HS. Randomized phase III trial of capecitabine compared with bevacizumab plus capecitabine in patients with previously treated metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Feb 1;23(4):792-9. link to original article contains protocol PubMed NCT00109239
RIBBON-2: Brufsky AM, Hurvitz S, Perez E, Swamy R, Valero V, O'Neill V, Rugo HS. RIBBON-2: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy for second-line treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Nov 10;29(32):4286-93. Epub 2011 Oct 11. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00281697
TANIA: von Minckwitz G, Puglisi F, Cortes J, Vrdoljak E, Marschner N, Zielinski C, Villanueva C, Romieu G, Lang I, Ciruelos E, De Laurentiis M, Veyret C, de Ducla S, Freudensprung U, Srock S, Gligorov J. Bevacizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone as second-line treatment for patients with HER2-negative locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer after first-line treatment with bevacizumab plus chemotherapy (TANIA): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014 Oct;15(11):1269-78. Epub 2014 Sep 28. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT01250379
1. Update: Vrdoljak E, Marschner N, Zielinski C, Gligorov J, Cortes J, Puglisi F, Aapro M, Fallowfield L, Fontana A, Inbar M, Kahan Z, Welt A, Lévy C, Brain E, Pivot X, Putzu C, González Martín A, de Ducla S, Easton V, von Minckwitz G. Final results of the TANIA randomised phase III trial of bevacizumab after progression on first-line bevacizumab therapy for HER2-negative locally recurrent/metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2016 Nov;27(11):2046-2052. Epub 2016 Aug 8. link to original article PubMed

Capecitabine & Docetaxel (TX)

back to top

TX: Taxotere (Docetaxel) & Xeloda (Capecitabine)
XT: Xeloda (Capecitabine) & Taxotere (Docetaxel)
DC: Docetaxel & Capecitabine

Regimen variant #1, 825/60

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Yamamoto et al. 2016 (JO21095)	2008-2010	Phase 3 (E-esc)	Docetaxel	Seems to have superior PFS

Chemotherapy

Capecitabine (Xeloda) 825 mg/m² PO twice per day on days 1 to 14
Docetaxel (Taxotere) 60 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycles

Regimen variant #2, 1250/75

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
O'Shaughnessy et al. 2002	NR	Phase 3 (E-RT-esc)	Docetaxel	Superior OS¹
Chan et al. 2009	2002-2004	Phase 3 (C)	GD	Did not meet primary endpoint of PFS

¹Reported efficacy for O'Shaughnessy et al. 2002 is based on the 2004 update.

Chemotherapy

Capecitabine (Xeloda) 1250 mg/m² PO twice per day on days 1 to 14
Docetaxel (Taxotere) 75 mg/m² IV over 60 minutes once on day 1

21-day cycles

References

O'Shaughnessy J, Miles D, Vukelja S, Moiseyenko V, Ayoub JP, Cervantes G, Fumoleau P, Jones S, Lui WY, Mauriac L, Twelves C, Van Hazel G, Verma S, Leonard R. Superior survival with capecitabine plus docetaxel combination therapy in anthracycline-pretreated patients with advanced breast cancer: phase III trial results. J Clin Oncol. 2002 Jun 15;20(12):2812-23. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
1. Update: Miles D, Vukelja S, Moiseyenko V, Cervantes G, Mauriac L, Van Hazel G, Liu WY, Ayoub JP, O'Shaughnessy JA. Survival benefit with capecitabine/docetaxel versus docetaxel alone: analysis of therapy in a randomized phase III trial. Clin Breast Cancer. 2004 Oct;5(4):273-8. link to original article PubMed
Chan S, Romieu G, Huober J, Delozier T, Tubiana-Hulin M, Schneeweiss A, Lluch A, Llombart A, du Bois A, Kreienberg R, Mayordomo JI, Antón A, Harrison M, Jones A, Carrasco E, Vaury AT, Frimodt-Moller B, Fumoleau P. Phase III study of gemcitabine plus docetaxel compared with capecitabine plus docetaxel for anthracycline-pretreated patients with metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009 Apr 10;27(11):1753-60. Epub 2009 Mar 9. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
JO21095: Yamamoto D, Sato N, Rai Y, Yamamoto Y, Saito M, Iwata H, Masuda N, Oura S, Watanabe J, Hattori S, Matsuura Y, Kuroi K. Efficacy and safety of low-dose capecitabine plus docetaxel versus single-agent docetaxel in patients with anthracycline-pretreated HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: results from the randomized phase III JO21095 trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017 Feb;161(3):473-482. Epub 2016 Dec 22. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed

Capecitabine & Ixabepilone

back to top

XI: Xeloda (Capecitabine) & Ixabepilone

Regimen

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Thomas et al. 2007 (CA163-046)	2003-2006	Phase 3 (E-RT-esc)	Capecitabine	Superior PFS Median PFS: 5.8 vs 4.2 mo (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.64-0.88)
Sparano et al. 2010 (CA163-048)	2003-2006	Phase 3 (E-RT-esc)	Capecitabine	Might have superior OS Median OS: 16.4 vs 15.6 mo (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.78-1.03)

Chemotherapy

Capecitabine (Xeloda) 1000 mg/m² PO twice per day on days 1 to 14
Ixabepilone (Ixempra) 40 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycles

References

CA163-046: Thomas ES, Gomez HL, Li RK, Chung HC, Fein LE, Chan VF, Jassem J, Pivot XB, Klimovsky JV, de Mendoza FH, Xu B, Campone M, Lerzo GL, Peck RA, Mukhopadhyay P, Vahdat LT, Roché HH. Ixabepilone plus capecitabine for metastatic breast cancer progressing after anthracycline and taxane treatment. J Clin Oncol. 2007 Nov 20;25(33):5210-7. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
1. Update: Hortobagyi GN, Gomez HL, Li RK, Chung HC, Fein LE, Chan VF, Jassem J, Lerzo GL, Pivot XB, Hurtado de Mendoza F, Xu B, Vahdat LT, Peck RA, Mukhopadhyay P, Roché HH. Analysis of overall survival from a phase III study of ixabepilone plus capecitabine versus capecitabine in patients with MBC resistant to anthracyclines and taxanes. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010 Jul;122(2):409-18. Epub 2010 May 8. link to original article PubMed
CA163-048: Sparano JA, Vrdoljak E, Rixe O, Xu B, Manikhas A, Medina C, Da Costa SC, Ro J, Rubio G, Rondinon M, Perez Manga G, Peck R, Poulart V, Conte P. Randomized phase III trial of ixabepilone plus capecitabine versus capecitabine in patients with metastatic breast cancer previously treated with an anthracycline and a taxane. J Clin Oncol. 2010 Jul 10;28(20):3256-63. link to original article contains verified protocol link to PMC article PubMed NCT00082433

Carboplatin & Gemcitabine (GCb)

back to top

Regimen

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence
Nagourney et al. 2008	2002-2005	Pilot, <20 pts

Chemotherapy

Carboplatin (Paraplatin) AUC 2 IV over 60 minutes once per day on days 1 & 8
Gemcitabine (Gemzar) 800 mg/m² IV over 60 minutes once per day on days 1 & 8

21-day cycles until CR or indefinitely

References

Nagourney RA, Flam M, Link J, Hager S, Blitzer J, Lyons W, Sommers BL, Evans S. Carboplatin plus gemcitabine repeating doublet therapy in recurrent breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer. 2008 Oct;8(5):432-5. link to original article contains protocol PubMed

Cisplatin & Vinorelbine

back to top

Regimen

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence
Ray-Coquard et al. 1998	1992-1994	Phase II
Vassilomanolakis et al. 2000	NR	Phase II

Chemotherapy

Cisplatin (Platinol) 75 mg/m² IV over 60 minutes once on day 1
Vinorelbine (Navelbine) 25 mg/m² IV over 5 to 10 minutes once per day on days 1 & 8

Supportive medications

Normal saline 200 mL bolus after Vinorelbine (Navelbine) to prevent phlebitis
Normal saline 2000 mL with KCl (unspecified amount of KCl) IV over 4 hours once on day 1, prior to Cisplatin (Platinol)
Furosemide (Lasix) 40 mg IV once on day 1; 20 minutes prior to Cisplatin (Platinol)
Normal saline 1000 mL and D5W 1000 mL IV over 4 hours once on day 1, after Cisplatin (Platinol)
- Paper did not say whether fluids were given sequentially or concurrently
5-HT3 antagonists used

21-day cycle for up to 6 cycles

References

Ray-Coquard I, Biron P, Bachelot T, Guastalla JP, Catimel G, Merrouche Y, Droz JP, Chauvin F, Blay JY. Vinorelbine and cisplatin (CIVIC regimen) for the treatment of metastatic breast carcinoma after failure of anthracycline- and/or paclitaxel-containing regimens. Cancer. 1998 Jan 1;82(1):134-40. link to original article PubMed
Vassilomanolakis M, Koumakis G, Barbounis V, Demiri M, Pateras H, Efremidis AP. Vinorelbine and cisplatin in metastatic breast cancer patients previously treated with anthracyclines. Ann Oncol. 2000 Sep;11(9):1155-60. link to original article contains verified protocol Pubmed

Cyclophosphamide & Methotrexate (CM)

back to top

CM: Cyclophosphamide & Methotrexate

Regimen variant #1

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence
Colleoni et al. 2002	1997-2000	Non-randomized

Chemotherapy

Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 50 mg PO once per day
Methotrexate (MTX) 2.5 mg PO twice per day on days 1 & 2

7-day cycles

Regimen variant #2, metronomic

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Colleoni et al. 2005	2000-2003	Randomized (C)	CM & Thalidomide	Did not meet primary endpoint of % reduction in VEGF after 2 months of treatment

Note: to our knowledge, this regimen was not tested as an experimental arm in an RCT prior to becoming a standard comparator arm.

Chemotherapy

Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) 50 mg PO once per day
Methotrexate (MTX) 2.5 mg PO twice per day on days 1 & 4

7-day cycles

References

Colleoni M, Rocca A, Sandri MT, Zorzino L, Masci G, Nolè F, Peruzzotti G, Robertson C, Orlando L, Cinieri S, de Braud F, Viale G, Goldhirsch A. Low-dose oral methotrexate and cyclophosphamide in metastatic breast cancer: antitumor activity and correlation with vascular endothelial growth factor levels. Ann Oncol. 2002 Jan;13(1):73-80. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
Colleoni M, Orlando L, Sanna G, Rocca A, Maisonneuve P, Peruzzotti G, Ghisini R, Sandri MT, Zorzino L, Nolè F, Viale G, Goldhirsch A. Metronomic low-dose oral cyclophosphamide and methotrexate plus or minus thalidomide in metastatic breast cancer: antitumor activity and biological effects. Ann Oncol. 2006 Feb;17(2):232-8. Epub 2005 Dec 1. link to original article contains protocol PubMed

Cyclophosphamide monotherapy

back to top

Regimen

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Cortes et al. 2018 (L00070 IN 308 B0)	2009-2011	Phase 3 (C)	Vinflunine	Did not meet primary endpoint of OS

Note: this was the most commonly used comparator arm; doses were not provided in the manuscript.

Chemotherapy

Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan)

References

L00070 IN 308 B0: Cortes J, Perez-Garcia J, Levy C, Gómez Pardo P, Bourgeois H, Spazzapan S, Martínez-Jañez N, Chao TC, Espié M, Nabholtz JM, Gonzàlez Farré X, Beliakouski V, Román García J, Holgado E, Campone M. Open-label randomised phase III trial of vinflunine versus an alkylating agent in patients with heavily pretreated metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2018 Apr 1;29(4):881-887. link to original article PubMed NCT01091168

Docetaxel monotherapy

back to top

D: Docetaxel
T: Taxotere (Docetaxel)

Regimen variant #1, 40 mg/m² 3 weeks out of 4

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy	Comparative Toxicity
Rivera et al. 2008	2001-2004	Phase III (C), <20 pts in this subgroup	Docetaxel; q3wk	Did not meet primary endpoint of ORR	Superior toxicity

Chemotherapy

Docetaxel (Taxotere) as follows:
- Cycle 1: 35 mg/m² IV over 30 minutes once per day on days 1, 8, 15
- Cycle 2 onwards: 40 mg/m² IV over 30 minutes once per day on days 1, 8, 15

28-day cycles

Regimen variant #2, 40 mg/m² 6 weeks out of 8

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence
Burstein et al. 2000	1998	Phase II

Chemotherapy

Docetaxel (Taxotere) 40 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1, 8, 15, 22, 29, 36

8-week cycles

Regimen variant #3, 60 mg/m²

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Adachi et al. 1996	1993	Phase II
Harvey et al. 2006 (TAX 313)	1995-2001	Phase 3 (E-RT-de-esc)	1. Docetaxel; 75 mg/m² q3wk	Might have inferior TTP
Harvey et al. 2006 (TAX 313)	1995-2001	Phase 3 (E-RT-de-esc)	2. Docetaxel; 100 mg/m² q3wk	Might have inferior TTP
von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)	2011-2013	Phase 3 (C)	1. Capecitabine & Bevacizumab 2. Docetaxel & Bevacizumab 3. Doxorubicin & Bevacizumab 4. NPLD & Bevacizumab 5. PLD & Bevacizumab 6. Gemcitabine & Bevacizumab 7. nab-Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab	Inferior PFS

Note: this is the dosage used for Japanese patients; Adachi et al. 1996 reported 21- to 28-day cycles

Chemotherapy

Docetaxel (Taxotere) 60 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycles

Regimen variant #4, 70 mg/m²

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Yamamoto et al. 2016 (JO21095)	2008-2010	Phase 3 (C)	TX	Seems to have inferior OS

Chemotherapy

Docetaxel (Taxotere) 70 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycles

Subsequent treatment

Upon progression: Capecitabine

Regimen variant #5, 75 mg/m²

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Harvey et al. 2006 (TAX 313)	1995-2001	Phase 3 (E-RT-esc)	1. Docetaxel; 60 mg/m² q3wk	Might have superior TTP
Harvey et al. 2006 (TAX 313)	1995-2001	Phase 3 (E-RT-esc)	2. Docetaxel; 100 mg/m² q3wk	Might have inferior TTP
Brufsky et al. 2011 (RIBBON-2)	2006-2008	Phase 3 (C)	1. Capecitabine & Bevacizumab 2. Docetaxel & Bevacizumab 3. Gemcitabine & Bevacizumab 4. Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab 5. nab-Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab 6. Vinorelbine & Bevacizumab	Inferior PFS
von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)	2011-2013	Phase 3 (C)	1. Capecitabine & Bevacizumab 2. Docetaxel & Bevacizumab 3. Doxorubicin & Bevacizumab 4. NPLD & Bevacizumab 5. PLD & Bevacizumab 6. Gemcitabine & Bevacizumab 7. nab-Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab	Inferior PFS

Note: This is the lower end of the range of docetaxel dosing described in TANIA.

Chemotherapy

Docetaxel (Taxotere) 75 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycles

Regimen variant #6, 100 mg/m²

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy	Comparative Toxicity
ten Bokkel Huinink et al. 1994	NR	Phase II
Nabholtz et al. 1999 (TAX 304)	NR	Phase 3 (E-RT-de-esc)	MV	Superior OS
Chan et al. 1999 (TAX 303)	1994-1997	Phase 3 (E-RT-switch-ic)	Doxorubicin	Superior ORR
Sjöström et al. 1999	1994-1997	Phase 3 (E-de-esc)	MF	Superior TTP
O'Shaughnessy et al. 2002	NR	Phase 3 (C)	TX	Inferior OS¹
Jones et al. 2005 (TAX 311)	1994-2001	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	Paclitaxel	Seems to have superior OS
Bonneterre et al. 2002	1995-1997	Phase 3 (E-de-esc)	5-FU & Vinorelbine	Did not meet primary endpoint of TTP	Less toxic
Harvey et al. 2006 (TAX 313)	1995-2001	Phase 3 (E-RT-esc)	1. Docetaxel; 60 mg/m² q3wk	Might have superior TTP
Harvey et al. 2006 (TAX 313)	1995-2001	Phase 3 (E-RT-esc)	2. Docetaxel; 75 mg/m² q3wk	Might have superior TTP
Rivera et al. 2008	2001-2004	Phase III (C), <20 pts in this subgroup	Docetaxel; weekly	Did not meet primary endpoint of ORR	Inferior toxicity
Nielsen et al. 2011	2001-2005	Phase 3 (C)	Docetaxel & Gemcitabine	Might have inferior TTP
Schröder et al. 2011	2001-2006	Phase 3 (C)	Docetaxel; weekly	Seems to have superior OS
Brufsky et al. 2011 (RIBBON-2)	2006-2008	Phase 3 (C)	1. Capecitabine & Bevacizumab 2. Docetaxel & Bevacizumab 3. Gemcitabine & Bevacizumab 4. Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab 5. nab-Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab 6. Vinorelbine & Bevacizumab	Inferior PFS
von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)	2011-2013	Phase 3 (C)	1. Capecitabine & Bevacizumab 2. Docetaxel & Bevacizumab 3. Doxorubicin & Bevacizumab 4. NPLD & Bevacizumab 5. PLD & Bevacizumab 6. Gemcitabine & Bevacizumab 7. nab-Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab	Inferior PFS

¹Reported efficacy for O'Shaughnessy et al. 2002 is based on the 2004 update.
Note: this is the upper end of the range of docetaxel dosing described in TANIA. TAX 304 stopped treatment after 10 cycles. TAX 303 stopped treatment after 7 cycles.

Chemotherapy

Docetaxel (Taxotere) 100 mg/m² IV once on day 1
- Note: Rivera et al. 2008 gave 75 mg/m² in cycle 1, with escalation to 100 mg/m² depending on toxicity

21-day cycles (see note)

References

ten Bokkel Huinink WW, Prove AM, Piccart M, Steward W, Tursz T, Wanders J, Franklin H, Clavel M, Verweij J, Alakl M, Bayssas M, Kaye SB; EORTC Early Clinical Trials Group. A phase II trial with docetaxel (Taxotere) in second line treatment with chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer: a study of the EORTC Early Clinical Trials Group. Ann Oncol. 1994 Jul;5(6):527-32. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
Adachi I, Watanabe T, Takashima S, Narabayashi M, Horikoshi N, Aoyama H, Taguchi T. A late phase II study of RP56976 (docetaxel) in patients with advanced or recurrent breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 1996 Jan;73(2):210-6. link to original article link to PMC article contains protocol PubMed
TAX 304: Nabholtz JM, Senn HJ, Bezwoda WR, Melnychuk D, Deschênes L, Douma J, Vandenberg TA, Rapoport B, Rosso R, Trillet-Lenoir V, Drbal J, Molino A, Nortier JW, Richel DJ, Nagykalnai T, Siedlecki P, Wilking N, Genot JY, Hupperets PS, Pannuti F, Skarlos D, Tomiak EM, Murawsky M, Alakl M, Aapro M; 304 Study Group. Prospective randomized trial of docetaxel versus mitomycin plus vinblastine in patients with metastatic breast cancer progressing despite previous anthracycline-containing chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 1999 May;17(5):1413-24. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
Review: Burris HA 3rd. Single-agent docetaxel (Taxotere) in randomized phase III trials. Semin Oncol. 1999 Jun;26(3 Suppl 9):1-6. PubMed
TAX 303: Chan S, Friedrichs K, Noel D, Pintér T, Van Belle S, Vorobiof D, Duarte R, Gil Gil M, Bodrogi I, Murray E, Yelle L, von Minckwitz G, Korec S, Simmonds P, Buzzi F, González Mancha R, Richardson G, Walpole E, Ronzoni M, Murawsky M, Alakl M, Riva A, Crown J; 303 Study Group. Prospective randomized trial of docetaxel versus doxorubicin in patients with metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1999 Aug;17(8):2341-54. link to original article PubMed
Sjöström J, Blomqvist C, Mouridsen H, Pluzanska A, Ottosson-Lönn S, Bengtsson NO, Ostenstad B, Mjaaland I, Palm-Sjövall M, Wist E, Valvere V, Anderson H, Bergh J; Scandinavian Breast Group. Docetaxel compared with sequential methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil in patients with advanced breast cancer after anthracycline failure: a randomised phase III study with crossover on progression by the Scandinavian Breast Group. Eur J Cancer. 1999 Aug;35(8):1194-201. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
O'Shaughnessy J, Miles D, Vukelja S, Moiseyenko V, Ayoub JP, Cervantes G, Fumoleau P, Jones S, Lui WY, Mauriac L, Twelves C, Van Hazel G, Verma S, Leonard R. Superior survival with capecitabine plus docetaxel combination therapy in anthracycline-pretreated patients with advanced breast cancer: phase III trial results. J Clin Oncol. 2002 Jun 15;20(12):2812-23. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
1. Update: Miles D, Vukelja S, Moiseyenko V, Cervantes G, Mauriac L, Van Hazel G, Liu WY, Ayoub JP, O'Shaughnessy JA. Survival benefit with capecitabine/docetaxel versus docetaxel alone: analysis of therapy in a randomized phase III trial. Clin Breast Cancer. 2004 Oct;5(4):273-8. link to original article PubMed
Bonneterre J, Roché H, Monnier A, Guastalla JP, Namer M, Fargeot P, Assadourian S. Docetaxel vs 5-fluorouracil plus vinorelbine in metastatic breast cancer after anthracycline therapy failure. Br J Cancer. 2002 Nov 18;87(11):1210-5. link to original article contains protocol link to PMC article PubMed
TAX 311: Jones SE, Erban J, Overmoyer B, Budd GT, Hutchins L, Lower E, Laufman L, Sundaram S, Urba WJ, Pritchard KI, Mennel R, Richards D, Olsen S, Meyers ML, Ravdin PM. Randomized phase III study of docetaxel compared with paclitaxel in metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Aug 20;23(24):5542-51. link to original article contains protocol PubMed NCT00002662
TAX 313: Harvey V, Mouridsen H, Semiglazov V, Jakobsen E, Voznyi E, Robinson BA, Groult V, Murawsky M, Cold S. Phase III trial comparing three doses of docetaxel for second-line treatment of advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006 Nov 1;24(31):4963-70. Epub 2006 Oct 10. link to original article PubMed
Rivera E, Mejia JA, Arun BK, Adinin RB, Walters RS, Brewster A, Broglio KR, Yin G, Esmaeli B, Hortobagyi GN, Valero V. Phase 3 study comparing the use of docetaxel on an every-3-week versus weekly schedule in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Cancer. 2008 Apr 1;112(7):1455-61. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
Schröder CP, de Munck L, Westermann AM, Smit WM, Creemers GJ, de Graaf H, Stouthard JM, van Deijk G, Erjavec Z, van Bochove A, Vader W, Willemse PH. Weekly docetaxel in metastatic breast cancer patients: no superior benefits compared to three-weekly docetaxel. Eur J Cancer. 2011 Jun;47(9):1355-62. Epub 2011 Jan 19. link to original article PubMed
RIBBON-2: Brufsky AM, Hurvitz S, Perez E, Swamy R, Valero V, O'Neill V, Rugo HS. RIBBON-2: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy for second-line treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Nov 10;29(32):4286-93. Epub 2011 Oct 11. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00281697
Nielsen DL, Bjerre KD, Jakobsen EH, Cold S, Stenbygaard L, Sørensen PG, Kamby C, Møller S, Jørgensen CL, Andersson M; Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group. Gemcitabine plus docetaxel versus docetaxel in patients with predominantly human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer: a randomized, phase III study by the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Dec 20;29(36):4748-54. Epub 2011 Nov 14. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
TANIA: von Minckwitz G, Puglisi F, Cortes J, Vrdoljak E, Marschner N, Zielinski C, Villanueva C, Romieu G, Lang I, Ciruelos E, De Laurentiis M, Veyret C, de Ducla S, Freudensprung U, Srock S, Gligorov J. Bevacizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone as second-line treatment for patients with HER2-negative locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer after first-line treatment with bevacizumab plus chemotherapy (TANIA): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014 Oct;15(11):1269-78. Epub 2014 Sep 28. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT01250379
1. Update: Vrdoljak E, Marschner N, Zielinski C, Gligorov J, Cortes J, Puglisi F, Aapro M, Fallowfield L, Fontana A, Inbar M, Kahan Z, Welt A, Lévy C, Brain E, Pivot X, Putzu C, González Martín A, de Ducla S, Easton V, von Minckwitz G. Final results of the TANIA randomised phase III trial of bevacizumab after progression on first-line bevacizumab therapy for HER2-negative locally recurrent/metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2016 Nov;27(11):2046-2052. Epub 2016 Aug 8. link to original article PubMed
JO21095: Yamamoto D, Sato N, Rai Y, Yamamoto Y, Saito M, Iwata H, Masuda N, Oura S, Watanabe J, Hattori S, Matsuura Y, Kuroi K. Efficacy and safety of low-dose capecitabine plus docetaxel versus single-agent docetaxel in patients with anthracycline-pretreated HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: results from the randomized phase III JO21095 trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017 Feb;161(3):473-482. Epub 2016 Dec 22. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed

Docetaxel & Bevacizumab

back to top

Regimen variant #1, docetaxel 60 mg/m²

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)	2011-2013	Phase 3 (E-esc)	1. Capecitabine 2. Docetaxel 3. Doxorubicin 4. NPLD 5. PLD 6. Gemcitabine 7. nab-Paclitaxel	Superior PFS Median PFS: 6.3 vs 4.2 mo (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61-0.93)

Note: this is the dosage used for Japanese patients.

Chemotherapy

Docetaxel (Taxotere) 60 mg/m² IV once on day 1

Targeted therapy

Bevacizumab (Avastin) 15 mg/kg IV once on day 1

21-day cycles

Regimen variant #2, docetaxel 75 mg/m²

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Brufsky et al. 2011 (RIBBON-2)	2006-2008	Phase 3 (E-esc)	1. Capecitabine 2. Docetaxel 3. Gemcitabine 4. Paclitaxel 5. nab-Paclitaxel 6. Vinorelbine	Superior PFS Median PFS: 7.2 vs 5.1 mo (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.64-0.93)
von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)	2011-2013	Phase 3 (E-esc)	1. Capecitabine 2. Docetaxel 3. Doxorubicin 4. NPLD 5. PLD 6. Gemcitabine 7. nab-Paclitaxel	Superior PFS Median PFS: 6.3 vs 4.2 mo (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61-0.93)

Note: this is the lower end of the range of docetaxel dosing described in TANIA.

Chemotherapy

Docetaxel (Taxotere) 75 mg/m² IV once on day 1

Targeted therapy

Bevacizumab (Avastin) 15 mg/kg IV once on day 1

21-day cycles

Regimen variant #3, docetaxel 100 mg/m²

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Brufsky et al. 2011 (RIBBON-2)	2006-2008	Phase 3 (E-esc)	1. Capecitabine 2. Docetaxel 3. Gemcitabine 4. Paclitaxel 5. nab-Paclitaxel 6. Vinorelbine	Superior PFS Median PFS: 7.2 vs 5.1 mo (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.64-0.93)
von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)	2011-2013	Phase 3 (E-esc)	1. Capecitabine 2. Docetaxel 3. Doxorubicin 4. NPLD 5. PLD 6. Gemcitabine 7. nab-Paclitaxel	Superior PFS Median PFS: 6.3 vs 4.2 mo (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61-0.93)

Note: this is the upper end of the range of docetaxel dosing described in TANIA.

Chemotherapy

Docetaxel (Taxotere) 100 mg/m² IV once on day 1

Targeted therapy

Bevacizumab (Avastin) 15 mg/kg IV once on day 1

21-day cycles

References

RIBBON-2: Brufsky AM, Hurvitz S, Perez E, Swamy R, Valero V, O'Neill V, Rugo HS. RIBBON-2: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy for second-line treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Nov 10;29(32):4286-93. Epub 2011 Oct 11. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00281697
TANIA: von Minckwitz G, Puglisi F, Cortes J, Vrdoljak E, Marschner N, Zielinski C, Villanueva C, Romieu G, Lang I, Ciruelos E, De Laurentiis M, Veyret C, de Ducla S, Freudensprung U, Srock S, Gligorov J. Bevacizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone as second-line treatment for patients with HER2-negative locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer after first-line treatment with bevacizumab plus chemotherapy (TANIA): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014 Oct;15(11):1269-78. Epub 2014 Sep 28. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT01250379
1. Update: Vrdoljak E, Marschner N, Zielinski C, Gligorov J, Cortes J, Puglisi F, Aapro M, Fallowfield L, Fontana A, Inbar M, Kahan Z, Welt A, Lévy C, Brain E, Pivot X, Putzu C, González Martín A, de Ducla S, Easton V, von Minckwitz G. Final results of the TANIA randomised phase III trial of bevacizumab after progression on first-line bevacizumab therapy for HER2-negative locally recurrent/metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2016 Nov;27(11):2046-2052. Epub 2016 Aug 8. link to original article PubMed

Doxorubicin monotherapy

back to top

Regimen variant #1, 20 mg/m² weekly

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)	2011-2013	Phase 3 (C)	1. Capecitabine & Bevacizumab 2. Docetaxel & Bevacizumab 3. Doxorubicin & Bevacizumab 4. NPLD & Bevacizumab 5. PLD & Bevacizumab 6. Gemcitabine & Bevacizumab 7. nab-Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab	Inferior PFS

Note: this is the lower end of the range of weekly doxorubicin dosing described in TANIA.

Chemotherapy

Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 20 mg/m² IV once on day 1

7-day cycles

Regimen variant #2, 25 mg/m² weekly

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)	2011-2013	Phase 3 (C)	1. Capecitabine & Bevacizumab 2. Docetaxel & Bevacizumab 3. Doxorubicin & Bevacizumab 4. NPLD & Bevacizumab 5. PLD & Bevacizumab 6. Gemcitabine & Bevacizumab 7. nab-Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab	Inferior PFS

Note: this is the higher end of the range of weekly doxorubicin dosing described in TANIA.

Chemotherapy

Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 25 mg/m² IV once on day 1

7-day cycles

Regimen variant #3, 60 mg/m² q3wk

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Cowan et al. 1991 (SWOG S8203)	1983-1986	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	1. Bisantrene 2. Mitoxantrone	Seems to have superior OS
Norris et al. 2000 (NCIC-CTG MA.8)	1992-1995	Phase 3 (C)	Doxorubicin & Vinorelbine	Did not meet primary endpoint of OS
Reyno et al. 2004 (NCIC CT MA.19)	1998-1999	Phase 3 (C)	Doxorubicin & Tesmilifene	Did not meet primary endpoint of PFS
von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)	2011-2013	Phase 3 (C)	1. Capecitabine & Bevacizumab 2. Docetaxel & Bevacizumab 3. Doxorubicin & Bevacizumab 4. NPLD & Bevacizumab 5. PLD & Bevacizumab 6. Gemcitabine & Bevacizumab 7. nab-Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab	Inferior PFS

Note: in NCIC-CTG MA.8, this dose was after a mid-protocol amendment. Treatment in NCIC-CTG MA.8 & MA.19 was given until a cumulative dose of 450 mg/m². This is the lower end of the range of q3wk doxorubicin dosing described in TANIA.

Chemotherapy

Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 60 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycles (see note)

Regimen variant #4, 75 mg/m² q3wk, limited duration

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Chan et al. 1999 (TAX 303)	1994-1997	Phase 3 (C)	Docetaxel	Inferior ORR

Chemotherapy

Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 75 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycle for up to 7 cycles

Regimen variant #5, 75 mg/m² q3wk, indefinite

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Bontenbal et al. 1998 (EORTC 10811)	1982-1986	Phase 3 (C)	Epirubicin	Did not meet primary endpoint of ORR
von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)	2011-2013	Phase 3 (C)	1. Capecitabine & Bevacizumab 2. Docetaxel & Bevacizumab 3. Doxorubicin & Bevacizumab 4. NPLD & Bevacizumab 5. PLD & Bevacizumab 6. Gemcitabine & Bevacizumab 7. nab-Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab	Inferior PFS

Note: this is the higher end of the range of q3wk doxorubicin dosing described in TANIA.

Chemotherapy

Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 75 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycles

References

SWOG S8203: Cowan JD, Neidhart J, McClure S, Coltman CA Jr, Gumbart C, Martino S, Hutchins LF, Stephens RL, Vaughan CB, Osborne CK. Randomized trial of doxorubicin, bisantrene, and mitoxantrone in advanced breast cancer: a Southwest Oncology Group study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1991 Aug 7;83(15):1077-84. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
EORTC 10811: Bontenbal M, Andersson M, Wildiers J, Cocconi G, Jassem J, Paridaens R, Rotmensz N, Sylvester R, Mouridsen HT, Klijn JG, van Oosterom AT; EORTC Breast Cancer Cooperative Group. Doxorubicin vs epirubicin, report of a second-line randomized phase II/III study in advanced breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 1998 Jun;77(12):2257-63. link to original article link to PMC article contains protocol PubMed
TAX 303: Chan S, Friedrichs K, Noel D, Pintér T, Van Belle S, Vorobiof D, Duarte R, Gil Gil M, Bodrogi I, Murray E, Yelle L, von Minckwitz G, Korec S, Simmonds P, Buzzi F, González Mancha R, Richardson G, Walpole E, Ronzoni M, Murawsky M, Alakl M, Riva A, Crown J; 303 Study Group. Prospective randomized trial of docetaxel versus doxorubicin in patients with metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1999 Aug;17(8):2341-54. link to original article PubMed
NCIC-CTG MA.8: Norris B, Pritchard KI, James K, Myles J, Bennett K, Marlin S, Skillings J, Findlay B, Vandenberg T, Goss P, Latreille J, Rudinskas L, Lofters W, Trudeau M, Osoba D, Rodgers A. Phase III comparative study of vinorelbine combined with doxorubicin versus doxorubicin alone in disseminated metastatic/recurrent breast cancer: National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group study MA8. J Clin Oncol. 2000 Jun;18(12):2385-94. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
NCIC CT MA.19: Reyno L, Seymour L, Tu D, Dent S, Gelmon K, Walley B, Pluzanska A, Gorbunova V, Garin A, Jassem J, Pienkowski T, Dancey J, Pearce L, MacNeil M, Marlin S, Lebwohl D, Voi M, Pritchard K; National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. Phase III study of N,N-diethyl-2-[4-(phenylmethyl) phenoxy]ethanamine (BMS-217380-01) combined with doxorubicin versus doxorubicin alone in metastatic/recurrent breast cancer: National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group Study MA.19. J Clin Oncol. 2004 Jan 15;22(2):269-76. link to original article PubMed
TANIA: von Minckwitz G, Puglisi F, Cortes J, Vrdoljak E, Marschner N, Zielinski C, Villanueva C, Romieu G, Lang I, Ciruelos E, De Laurentiis M, Veyret C, de Ducla S, Freudensprung U, Srock S, Gligorov J. Bevacizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone as second-line treatment for patients with HER2-negative locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer after first-line treatment with bevacizumab plus chemotherapy (TANIA): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014 Oct;15(11):1269-78. Epub 2014 Sep 28. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT01250379
1. Update: Vrdoljak E, Marschner N, Zielinski C, Gligorov J, Cortes J, Puglisi F, Aapro M, Fallowfield L, Fontana A, Inbar M, Kahan Z, Welt A, Lévy C, Brain E, Pivot X, Putzu C, González Martín A, de Ducla S, Easton V, von Minckwitz G. Final results of the TANIA randomised phase III trial of bevacizumab after progression on first-line bevacizumab therapy for HER2-negative locally recurrent/metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2016 Nov;27(11):2046-2052. Epub 2016 Aug 8. link to original article PubMed

Doxorubicin & Bevacizumab

back to top

Regimen variant #1, doxorubicin 20 mg/m² weekly

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)	2011-2013	Phase 3 (E-esc)	1. Capecitabine 2. Docetaxel 3. Doxorubicin 4. NPLD 5. PLD 6. Gemcitabine 7. nab-Paclitaxel	Superior PFS Median PFS: 6.3 vs 4.2 mo (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61-0.93)

Note: this is the lower end of the range of weekly doxorubicin dosing described in TANIA.

Chemotherapy

Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 20 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1, 8, 15, 22

Targeted therapy

Bevacizumab (Avastin) 10 mg/kg IV once per day on days 1 & 15

28-day cycles

Regimen variant #2, doxorubicin 25 mg/m² weekly

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)	2011-2013	Phase 3 (E-esc)	1. Capecitabine 2. Docetaxel 3. Doxorubicin 4. NPLD 5. PLD 6. Gemcitabine 7. nab-Paclitaxel	Superior PFS Median PFS: 6.3 vs 4.2 mo (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61-0.93)

Note: this is the higher end of the range of weekly doxorubicin dosing described in TANIA.

Chemotherapy

Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 25 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1, 8, 15, 22

Targeted therapy

Bevacizumab (Avastin) 10 mg/kg IV once per day on days 1 & 15

28-day cycles

Regimen variant #3, doxorubicin 60 mg/m² q3wk

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)	2011-2013	Phase 3 (E-esc)	1. Capecitabine 2. Docetaxel 3. Doxorubicin 4. NPLD 5. PLD 6. Gemcitabine 7. nab-Paclitaxel	Superior PFS Median PFS: 6.3 vs 4.2 mo (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61-0.93)

Note: this is the lower end of the range of q3wk doxorubicin dosing described in TANIA.

Chemotherapy

Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 60 mg/m² IV once on day 1

Targeted therapy

Bevacizumab (Avastin) 15 mg/kg IV once on day 1

21-day cycles

Regimen variant #4, doxorubicin 75 mg/m² q3wk

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)	2011-2013	Phase 3 (E-esc)	1. Capecitabine 2. Docetaxel 3. Doxorubicin 4. NPLD 5. PLD 6. Gemcitabine 7. nab-Paclitaxel	Superior PFS Median PFS: 6.3 vs 4.2 mo (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61-0.93)

Note: this is the higher end of the range of q3wk doxorubicin dosing described in TANIA.

Chemotherapy

Doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 75 mg/m² IV once on day 1

Targeted therapy

Bevacizumab (Avastin) 15 mg/kg IV once on day 1

21-day cycles

References

TANIA: von Minckwitz G, Puglisi F, Cortes J, Vrdoljak E, Marschner N, Zielinski C, Villanueva C, Romieu G, Lang I, Ciruelos E, De Laurentiis M, Veyret C, de Ducla S, Freudensprung U, Srock S, Gligorov J. Bevacizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone as second-line treatment for patients with HER2-negative locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer after first-line treatment with bevacizumab plus chemotherapy (TANIA): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014 Oct;15(11):1269-78. Epub 2014 Sep 28. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT01250379
1. Update: Vrdoljak E, Marschner N, Zielinski C, Gligorov J, Cortes J, Puglisi F, Aapro M, Fallowfield L, Fontana A, Inbar M, Kahan Z, Welt A, Lévy C, Brain E, Pivot X, Putzu C, González Martín A, de Ducla S, Easton V, von Minckwitz G. Final results of the TANIA randomised phase III trial of bevacizumab after progression on first-line bevacizumab therapy for HER2-negative locally recurrent/metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2016 Nov;27(11):2046-2052. Epub 2016 Aug 8. link to original article PubMed

Doxorubicin non-pegylated liposomal monotherapy

back to top

NPLD: Non-Pegylated Liposomal Doxorubicin

Regimen

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)	2011-2013	Phase 3 (C)	1. Capecitabine & Bevacizumab 2. Docetaxel & Bevacizumab 3. Doxorubicin & Bevacizumab 4. NPLD & Bevacizumab 5. PLD & Bevacizumab 6. Gemcitabine & Bevacizumab 7. nab-Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab	Inferior PFS

Chemotherapy

Non-pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (Myocet) 60 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycles

References

TANIA: von Minckwitz G, Puglisi F, Cortes J, Vrdoljak E, Marschner N, Zielinski C, Villanueva C, Romieu G, Lang I, Ciruelos E, De Laurentiis M, Veyret C, de Ducla S, Freudensprung U, Srock S, Gligorov J. Bevacizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone as second-line treatment for patients with HER2-negative locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer after first-line treatment with bevacizumab plus chemotherapy (TANIA): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014 Oct;15(11):1269-78. Epub 2014 Sep 28. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT01250379
1. Update: Vrdoljak E, Marschner N, Zielinski C, Gligorov J, Cortes J, Puglisi F, Aapro M, Fallowfield L, Fontana A, Inbar M, Kahan Z, Welt A, Lévy C, Brain E, Pivot X, Putzu C, González Martín A, de Ducla S, Easton V, von Minckwitz G. Final results of the TANIA randomised phase III trial of bevacizumab after progression on first-line bevacizumab therapy for HER2-negative locally recurrent/metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2016 Nov;27(11):2046-2052. Epub 2016 Aug 8. link to original article PubMed

Doxorubicin non-pegylated liposomal & Bevacizumab

back to top

NPLD/Bev: Non-Pegylated Liposomal Doxorubicin & Bevacizumab

Regimen

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)	2011-2013	Phase 3 (E-esc)	1. Capecitabine 2. Docetaxel 3. Doxorubicin 4. NPLD 5. PLD 6. Gemcitabine 7. nab-Paclitaxel	Superior PFS Median PFS: 6.3 vs 4.2 mo (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61-0.93)

Chemotherapy

Non-pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (Myocet) 60 mg/m² IV once on day 1

Targeted therapy

Bevacizumab (Avastin) 15 mg/kg IV once on day 1

21-day cycles

References

TANIA: von Minckwitz G, Puglisi F, Cortes J, Vrdoljak E, Marschner N, Zielinski C, Villanueva C, Romieu G, Lang I, Ciruelos E, De Laurentiis M, Veyret C, de Ducla S, Freudensprung U, Srock S, Gligorov J. Bevacizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone as second-line treatment for patients with HER2-negative locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer after first-line treatment with bevacizumab plus chemotherapy (TANIA): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014 Oct;15(11):1269-78. Epub 2014 Sep 28. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT01250379
1. Update: Vrdoljak E, Marschner N, Zielinski C, Gligorov J, Cortes J, Puglisi F, Aapro M, Fallowfield L, Fontana A, Inbar M, Kahan Z, Welt A, Lévy C, Brain E, Pivot X, Putzu C, González Martín A, de Ducla S, Easton V, von Minckwitz G. Final results of the TANIA randomised phase III trial of bevacizumab after progression on first-line bevacizumab therapy for HER2-negative locally recurrent/metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2016 Nov;27(11):2046-2052. Epub 2016 Aug 8. link to original article PubMed

Doxorubicin pegylated liposomal monotherapy

back to top

PLD: Pegylated Liposomal Doxorubicin

Regimen variant #1, 40 mg/m²

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)	2011-2013	Phase 3 (C)	1. Capecitabine & Bevacizumab 2. Docetaxel & Bevacizumab 3. Doxorubicin & Bevacizumab 4. NPLD & Bevacizumab 5. PLD & Bevacizumab 6. Gemcitabine & Bevacizumab 7. nab-Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab	Inferior PFS

Note: this is the lower end of the range of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin dosing described in TANIA.

Chemotherapy

Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (Doxil) 40 mg/m² IV once on day 1

28-day cycles

Regimen variant #2, 50 mg/m²

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Keller et al. 2004	NR	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	1. Mitomycin & Vinblastine 2. Vinorelbine	Did not meet primary endpoint of PFS
von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)	2011-2013	Phase 3 (C)	1. Capecitabine & Bevacizumab 2. Docetaxel & Bevacizumab 3. Doxorubicin & Bevacizumab 4. NPLD & Bevacizumab 5. PLD & Bevacizumab 6. Gemcitabine & Bevacizumab 7. nab-Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab	Inferior PFS

Note: this is the higher end of the range of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin dosing described in TANIA.

Chemotherapy

Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (Doxil) 50 mg/m² IV once on day 1

28-day cycles

References

Keller AM, Mennel RG, Georgoulias VA, Nabholtz JM, Erazo A, Lluch A, Vogel CL, Kaufmann M, von Minckwitz G, Henderson IC, Mellars L, Alland L, Tendler C. Randomized phase III trial of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin versus vinorelbine or mitomycin C plus vinblastine in women with taxane-refractory advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2004 Oct 1;22(19):3893-901. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
TANIA: von Minckwitz G, Puglisi F, Cortes J, Vrdoljak E, Marschner N, Zielinski C, Villanueva C, Romieu G, Lang I, Ciruelos E, De Laurentiis M, Veyret C, de Ducla S, Freudensprung U, Srock S, Gligorov J. Bevacizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone as second-line treatment for patients with HER2-negative locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer after first-line treatment with bevacizumab plus chemotherapy (TANIA): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014 Oct;15(11):1269-78. Epub 2014 Sep 28. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT01250379
1. Update: Vrdoljak E, Marschner N, Zielinski C, Gligorov J, Cortes J, Puglisi F, Aapro M, Fallowfield L, Fontana A, Inbar M, Kahan Z, Welt A, Lévy C, Brain E, Pivot X, Putzu C, González Martín A, de Ducla S, Easton V, von Minckwitz G. Final results of the TANIA randomised phase III trial of bevacizumab after progression on first-line bevacizumab therapy for HER2-negative locally recurrent/metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2016 Nov;27(11):2046-2052. Epub 2016 Aug 8. link to original article PubMed

Doxorubicin pegylated liposomal monotherapy

back to top

PLD: Pegylated Liposomal Doxorubicin

Regimen variant #1, 40 mg/m²

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)	2011-2013	Phase 3 (C)	1. Capecitabine & Bevacizumab 2. Docetaxel & Bevacizumab 3. Doxorubicin & Bevacizumab 4. NPLD & Bevacizumab 5. PLD & Bevacizumab 6. Gemcitabine & Bevacizumab 7. nab-Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab	Inferior PFS

Note: this is the lower end of the range of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin dosing described in TANIA.

Chemotherapy

Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (Doxil) 40 mg/m² IV once on day 1

28-day cycles

Regimen variant #2, 50 mg/m²

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Keller et al. 2004	NR	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	1. Mitomycin & Vinblastine 2. Vinorelbine	Did not meet primary endpoint of PFS
von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)	2011-2013	Phase 3 (C)	1. Capecitabine & Bevacizumab 2. Docetaxel & Bevacizumab 3. Doxorubicin & Bevacizumab 4. NPLD & Bevacizumab 5. PLD & Bevacizumab 6. Gemcitabine & Bevacizumab 7. nab-Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab	Inferior PFS

Note: this is the higher end of the range of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin dosing described in TANIA.

Chemotherapy

Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (Doxil) 50 mg/m² IV once on day 1

28-day cycles

References

Keller AM, Mennel RG, Georgoulias VA, Nabholtz JM, Erazo A, Lluch A, Vogel CL, Kaufmann M, von Minckwitz G, Henderson IC, Mellars L, Alland L, Tendler C. Randomized phase III trial of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin versus vinorelbine or mitomycin C plus vinblastine in women with taxane-refractory advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2004 Oct 1;22(19):3893-901. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
TANIA: von Minckwitz G, Puglisi F, Cortes J, Vrdoljak E, Marschner N, Zielinski C, Villanueva C, Romieu G, Lang I, Ciruelos E, De Laurentiis M, Veyret C, de Ducla S, Freudensprung U, Srock S, Gligorov J. Bevacizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone as second-line treatment for patients with HER2-negative locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer after first-line treatment with bevacizumab plus chemotherapy (TANIA): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014 Oct;15(11):1269-78. Epub 2014 Sep 28. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT01250379
1. Update: Vrdoljak E, Marschner N, Zielinski C, Gligorov J, Cortes J, Puglisi F, Aapro M, Fallowfield L, Fontana A, Inbar M, Kahan Z, Welt A, Lévy C, Brain E, Pivot X, Putzu C, González Martín A, de Ducla S, Easton V, von Minckwitz G. Final results of the TANIA randomised phase III trial of bevacizumab after progression on first-line bevacizumab therapy for HER2-negative locally recurrent/metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2016 Nov;27(11):2046-2052. Epub 2016 Aug 8. link to original article PubMed

Doxorubicin pegylated liposomal & Bevacizumab

back to top

PLD/Bev: Pegylated Liposomal Doxorubicin & Bevacizumab

Regimen variant #1, 40 mg/m²

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)	2011-2013	Phase 3 (E-esc)	1. Capecitabine 2. Docetaxel 3. Doxorubicin 4. NPLD 5. PLD 6. Gemcitabine 7. nab-Paclitaxel	Superior PFS Median PFS: 6.3 vs 4.2 mo (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61-0.93)

Note: this is the lower end of the range of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin dosing described in TANIA.

Chemotherapy

Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (Doxil) 40 mg/m² IV once on day 1

Targeted therapy

Bevacizumab (Avastin) 10 mg/kg IV once per day on days 1 & 15

28-day cycles

Regimen variant #2, 50 mg/m²

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)	2011-2013	Phase 3 (E-esc)	1. Capecitabine 2. Docetaxel 3. Doxorubicin 4. NPLD 5. PLD 6. Gemcitabine 7. nab-Paclitaxel	Superior PFS Median PFS: 6.3 vs 4.2 mo (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61-0.93)

Note: this is the higher end of the range of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin dosing described in TANIA.

Chemotherapy

Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (Doxil) 50 mg/m² IV once on day 1

Targeted therapy

Bevacizumab (Avastin) 10 mg/kg IV once per day on days 1 & 15

28-day cycles

References

TANIA: von Minckwitz G, Puglisi F, Cortes J, Vrdoljak E, Marschner N, Zielinski C, Villanueva C, Romieu G, Lang I, Ciruelos E, De Laurentiis M, Veyret C, de Ducla S, Freudensprung U, Srock S, Gligorov J. Bevacizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone as second-line treatment for patients with HER2-negative locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer after first-line treatment with bevacizumab plus chemotherapy (TANIA): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014 Oct;15(11):1269-78. Epub 2014 Sep 28. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT01250379
1. Update: Vrdoljak E, Marschner N, Zielinski C, Gligorov J, Cortes J, Puglisi F, Aapro M, Fallowfield L, Fontana A, Inbar M, Kahan Z, Welt A, Lévy C, Brain E, Pivot X, Putzu C, González Martín A, de Ducla S, Easton V, von Minckwitz G. Final results of the TANIA randomised phase III trial of bevacizumab after progression on first-line bevacizumab therapy for HER2-negative locally recurrent/metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2016 Nov;27(11):2046-2052. Epub 2016 Aug 8. link to original article PubMed

Eribulin monotherapy

back to top

Regimen

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Cortes et al. 2011 (EMBRACE)	2006-2008	Phase 3 (E-RT-switch-ic)	Investigator's choice	Seems to have superior OS Median OS: 13.1 vs 10.6 mo (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.66-0.99)
Kaufman et al. 2015 (E7389-G000-301)	2006-2009	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	Capecitabine	Seems to have superior OS Median OS: 15.9 vs. 14.5 mo (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.77-1.00)
Yuan et al. 2019 (E7389-C086-304)	2013-2015	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	Vinorelbine	Seems to have superior PFS Median PFS: 2.8 vs 2.8 mo (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.65-0.98)

Chemotherapy

Eribulin (Halaven) 1.4 mg/m² IV over 2 to 5 minutes once per day on days 1 & 8

21-day cycles

References

EMBRACE: Cortes J, O'Shaughnessy J, Loesch D, Blum JL, Vahdat LT, Petrakova K, Chollet P, Manikas A, Diéras V, Delozier T, Vladimirov V, Cardoso F, Koh H, Bougnoux P, Dutcus CE, Seegobin S, Mir D, Meneses N, Wanders J, Twelves C; EMBRACE (Eisai Metastatic Breast Cancer Study Assessing Physician's Choice Versus E7389) investigators. Eribulin monotherapy versus treatment of physician's choice in patients with metastatic breast cancer (EMBRACE): a phase 3 open-label randomised study. Lancet. 2011 Mar 12;377(9769):914-23. Epub 2011 Mar 2. link to original article contains protocol PubMed NCT00388726
E7389-G000-301: Kaufman PA, Awada A, Twelves C, Yelle L, Perez EA, Velikova G, Olivo MS, He Y, Dutcus CE, Cortes J. Phase III open-label randomized study of eribulin mesylate versus capecitabine in patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer previously treated with an anthracycline and a taxane. J Clin Oncol. 2015 Feb 20;33(6):594-601. Epub 2015 Jan 20. link to original article link to PMC article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00337103
E7389-C086-304: Yuan P, Hu X, Sun T, Li W, Zhang Q, Cui S, Cheng Y, Ouyang Q, Wang X, Chen Z, Hiraiwa M, Saito K, Funasaka S, Xu B. Eribulin mesilate versus vinorelbine in women with locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer: A randomised clinical trial. Eur J Cancer. 2019 May;112:57-65. Epub 2019 Mar 29. link to original article contains protocol PubMed NCT02225470
EVER-132-002: NCT04639986
TROPICS-02: NCT03901339

Gemcitabine monotherapy

back to top

Regimen variant #1, 800 mg/m² 3 weeks out of 4

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence
Carmichael et al. 1995	NR	Phase II

Chemotherapy

Gemcitabine (Gemzar) 800 mg/m² IV over 30 minutes once per day on days 1, 8, 15

28-day cycles

Regimen variant #2, 1000 mg/m² 3 weeks out of 4

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)	2011-2013	Phase 3 (C)	1. Capecitabine & Bevacizumab 2. Docetaxel & Bevacizumab 3. Doxorubicin & Bevacizumab 4. NPLD & Bevacizumab 5. PLD & Bevacizumab 6. Gemcitabine & Bevacizumab 7. nab-Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab	Inferior PFS

Chemotherapy

Gemcitabine (Gemzar) 1000 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1, 8, 15

28-day cycles

Regimen variant #3, 1200 mg/m² 3 weeks out of 4

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence
Spielmann et al. 2001	NR	Phase II

Chemotherapy

Gemcitabine (Gemzar) 1200 mg/m² IV over 30 minutes once per day on days 1, 8, 15

28-day cycles

Regimen variant #4, 1250 mg/m² 2 weeks out of 3

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Brufsky et al. 2011 (RIBBON-2)	2006-2008	Phase 3 (C)	1. Capecitabine & Bevacizumab 2. Docetaxel & Bevacizumab 3. Gemcitabine & Bevacizumab 4. Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab 5. nab-Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab 6. Vinorelbine & Bevacizumab	Inferior PFS
von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)	2011-2013	Phase 3 (C)	1. Capecitabine & Bevacizumab 2. Docetaxel & Bevacizumab 3. Doxorubicin & Bevacizumab 4. NPLD & Bevacizumab 5. PLD & Bevacizumab 6. Gemcitabine & Bevacizumab 7. nab-Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab	Inferior PFS

Chemotherapy

Gemcitabine (Gemzar) 1250 mg/m² IV over 30 minutes once per day on days 1 & 8

21-day cycles

References

Carmichael J, Possinger K, Phillip P, Beykirch M, Kerr H, Walling J, Harris AL. Advanced breast cancer: a phase II trial with gemcitabine. J Clin Oncol. 1995 Nov;13(11):2731-6. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
Spielmann M, Llombart-Cussac A, Kalla S, Espié M, Namer M, Ferrero JM, Diéras V, Fumoleau P, Cuvier C, Perrocheau G, Ponzio A, Kayitalire L, Pouillart P. Single-agent gemcitabine is active in previously treated metastatic breast cancer. Oncology. 2001;60(4):303-7. link to original article PubMed
RIBBON-2: Brufsky AM, Hurvitz S, Perez E, Swamy R, Valero V, O'Neill V, Rugo HS. RIBBON-2: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy for second-line treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Nov 10;29(32):4286-93. Epub 2011 Oct 11. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00281697
TANIA: von Minckwitz G, Puglisi F, Cortes J, Vrdoljak E, Marschner N, Zielinski C, Villanueva C, Romieu G, Lang I, Ciruelos E, De Laurentiis M, Veyret C, de Ducla S, Freudensprung U, Srock S, Gligorov J. Bevacizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone as second-line treatment for patients with HER2-negative locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer after first-line treatment with bevacizumab plus chemotherapy (TANIA): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014 Oct;15(11):1269-78. Epub 2014 Sep 28. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT01250379
1. Update: Vrdoljak E, Marschner N, Zielinski C, Gligorov J, Cortes J, Puglisi F, Aapro M, Fallowfield L, Fontana A, Inbar M, Kahan Z, Welt A, Lévy C, Brain E, Pivot X, Putzu C, González Martín A, de Ducla S, Easton V, von Minckwitz G. Final results of the TANIA randomised phase III trial of bevacizumab after progression on first-line bevacizumab therapy for HER2-negative locally recurrent/metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2016 Nov;27(11):2046-2052. Epub 2016 Aug 8. link to original article PubMed
EVER-132-002: NCT04639986
TROPICS-02: NCT03901339

Gemcitabine & Bevacizumab

back to top

Regimen variant #1, 1000 mg/m², 3 weeks out of 4

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)	2011-2013	Phase 3 (E-esc)	1. Capecitabine 2. Docetaxel 3. Doxorubicin 4. NPLD 5. PLD 6. Gemcitabine 7. nab-Paclitaxel	Superior PFS Median PFS: 6.3 vs 4.2 mo (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61-0.93)

Chemotherapy

Gemcitabine (Gemzar) 1000 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1, 8, 15

Targeted therapy

Bevacizumab (Avastin) 10 mg/kg IV once per day on days 1 & 15

28-day cycles

Regimen variant #2, 1250 mg/m², 2 weeks out of 3

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Brufsky et al. 2011 (RIBBON-2)	2006-2008	Phase 3 (E-esc)	1. Capecitabine 2. Docetaxel 3. Gemcitabine 4. Paclitaxel 5. nab-Paclitaxel 6. Vinorelbine	Superior PFS Median PFS: 7.2 vs 5.1 mo (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.64-0.93)
von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)	2011-2013	Phase 3 (E-esc)	1. Capecitabine 2. Docetaxel 3. Doxorubicin 4. NPLD 5. PLD 6. Gemcitabine 7. nab-Paclitaxel	Superior PFS Median PFS: 6.3 vs 4.2 mo (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61-0.93)

Chemotherapy

Gemcitabine (Gemzar) 1250 mg/m² IV over 30 minutes once per day on days 1 & 8

Targeted therapy

Bevacizumab (Avastin) 15 mg/kg IV once on day 1

21-day cycles

References

RIBBON-2: Brufsky AM, Hurvitz S, Perez E, Swamy R, Valero V, O'Neill V, Rugo HS. RIBBON-2: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy for second-line treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Nov 10;29(32):4286-93. Epub 2011 Oct 11. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00281697
TANIA: von Minckwitz G, Puglisi F, Cortes J, Vrdoljak E, Marschner N, Zielinski C, Villanueva C, Romieu G, Lang I, Ciruelos E, De Laurentiis M, Veyret C, de Ducla S, Freudensprung U, Srock S, Gligorov J. Bevacizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone as second-line treatment for patients with HER2-negative locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer after first-line treatment with bevacizumab plus chemotherapy (TANIA): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014 Oct;15(11):1269-78. Epub 2014 Sep 28. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT01250379
1. Update: Vrdoljak E, Marschner N, Zielinski C, Gligorov J, Cortes J, Puglisi F, Aapro M, Fallowfield L, Fontana A, Inbar M, Kahan Z, Welt A, Lévy C, Brain E, Pivot X, Putzu C, González Martín A, de Ducla S, Easton V, von Minckwitz G. Final results of the TANIA randomised phase III trial of bevacizumab after progression on first-line bevacizumab therapy for HER2-negative locally recurrent/metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2016 Nov;27(11):2046-2052. Epub 2016 Aug 8. link to original article PubMed

Ixabepilone monotherapy

back to top

Regimen

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence
Perez et al. 2007	2004-2005	Phase II (RT)

Chemotherapy

Ixabepilone (Ixempra) 40 mg/m² IV over 3 hours once on day 1

21-day cycles

References

Perez EA, Lerzo G, Pivot X, Thomas E, Vahdat L, Bosserman L, Viens P, Cai C, Mullaney B, Peck R, Hortobagyi GN. Efficacy and safety of ixabepilone (BMS-247550) in a phase II study of patients with advanced breast cancer resistant to an anthracycline, a taxane, and capecitabine. J Clin Oncol. 2007 Aug 10;25(23):3407-14. Epub 2007 Jul 2. link to original article PubMed

Paclitaxel monotherapy, weekly

back to top

Regimen variant #1, 80 mg/m² weekly

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Perez et al. 2001	NR	Phase II
Seidman et al. 2008 (CALGB 9840)	1998-NR	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	Paclitaxel q3wk	Superior OS Median OS: 24 vs 12 mo (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.65-0.94)

Chemotherapy

Paclitaxel (Taxol) 80 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1, 8, 15, 22

28-day cycles

Regimen variant #2, 90 mg/m² 3 weeks out of 4

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Brufsky et al. 2011 (RIBBON-2)	2006-2008	Phase 3 (C)	1. Capecitabine & Bevacizumab 2. Docetaxel & Bevacizumab 3. Gemcitabine & Bevacizumab 4. Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab 5. nab-Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab 6. Vinorelbine & Bevacizumab	Inferior PFS

Chemotherapy

Paclitaxel (Taxol) 90 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1, 8, 15

28-day cycles

References

Perez EA, Vogel CL, Irwin DH, Kirshner JJ, Patel R. Multicenter phase II trial of weekly paclitaxel in women with metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2001 Nov 15;19(22):4216-23. link to original article PubMed
CALGB 9840: Seidman AD, Berry D, Cirrincione C, Harris L, Muss H, Marcom PK, Gipson G, Burstein H, Lake D, Shapiro CL, Ungaro P, Norton L, Winer E, Hudis C. Randomized phase III trial of weekly compared with every-3-weeks paclitaxel for metastatic breast cancer, with trastuzumab for all HER-2 overexpressors and random assignment to trastuzumab or not in HER-2 nonoverexpressors: final results of Cancer and Leukemia Group B protocol 9840. J Clin Oncol. 2008 Apr 1;26(10):1642-9. link to original article PubMed NCT00003440
RIBBON-2: Brufsky AM, Hurvitz S, Perez E, Swamy R, Valero V, O'Neill V, Rugo HS. RIBBON-2: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy for second-line treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Nov 10;29(32):4286-93. Epub 2011 Oct 11. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00281697

Paclitaxel monotherapy, q3wk

back to top

Regimen variant #1, 135 mg/m²

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Nabholtz et al. 1996	1992	Phase 3 (E-RT-de-esc)	Paclitaxel; 175 mg/m² q3wk	Did not meet primary endpoint of ORR¹

¹Although Nabholtz et al. 1996 did not meet its primary endpoint, there seemed to be a TTP disadvantage in the lower-dose arm.

Chemotherapy

Paclitaxel (Taxol) 135 mg/m² IV over 3 hours once on day 1

21-day cycles

Regimen variant #2, 175 mg/m²

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Seidman et al. 1995	NR	Phase II
Nabholtz et al. 1996	1992	Phase 3 (E-RT-esc)	Paclitaxel; 135 mg/m² q3wk	Did not meet primary endpoint of ORR¹
Winer et al. 2004 (CALGB 9342)	1994-1997	Phase 3 (C)	1. Paclitaxel; 210 mg/m² q3wk 2. Paclitaxel; 250 mg/m² q3wk	Did not meet primary endpoint of ORR
Jones et al. 2005 (TAX 311)	1994-2001	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	Docetaxel	Seems to have inferior OS
Icli et al. 2005	1997-2002	Phase 3 (C)	EoP	Seems to have inferior OS
Seidman et al. 2008 (CALGB 9840)	1998-NR	Phase 3 (C)	Weekly paclitaxel	Inferior OS
Gradishar et al. 2005 (CA012-0)	2001-2002	Phase 3 (C)	nab-Paclitaxel	Inferior TTP
Brufsky et al. 2011 (RIBBON-2)	2006-2008	Phase 3 (C)	1. Capecitabine & Bevacizumab 2. Docetaxel & Bevacizumab 3. Gemcitabine & Bevacizumab 4. Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab 5. nab-Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab 6. Vinorelbine & Bevacizumab	Inferior PFS

¹Although Nabholtz et al. 1996 did not meet its primary endpoint, there seemed to be a TTP advantage in the higher-dose arm, which subsequently led to its adoption as the standard-of-care.

Chemotherapy

Paclitaxel (Taxol) 175 mg/m² IV over 3 hours once on day 1

21-day cycles

References

Seidman AD, Tiersten A, Hudis C, Gollub M, Barrett S, Yao TJ, Lepore J, Gilewski T, Currie V, Crown J, Hakes T, Baselga J, Sklarin N, Moynihan ME, Tong W, Egorin M, Kearns C, Spriggs D, Norton L. Phase II trial of paclitaxel by 3-hour infusion as initial and salvage chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1995 Oct;13(10):2575-81. link to original article PubMed
Nabholtz JM, Gelmon K, Bontenbal M, Spielmann M, Catimel G, Conte P, Klaassen U, Namer M, Bonneterre J, Fumoleau P, Winograd B. Multicenter, randomized comparative study of two doses of paclitaxel in patients with metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1996 Jun;14(6):1858-67. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
CALGB 9342: Winer EP, Berry DA, Woolf S, Duggan D, Kornblith A, Harris LN, Michaelson RA, Kirshner JA, Fleming GF, Perry MC, Graham ML, Sharp SA, Keresztes R, Henderson IC, Hudis C, Muss H, Norton L. Failure of higher-dose paclitaxel to improve outcome in patients with metastatic breast cancer: Cancer and Leukemia Group B trial 9342. J Clin Oncol. 2004 Jun 1;22(11):2061-8. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
Icli F, Akbulut H, Uner A, Yalcin B, Baltali E, Altinbas M, Coşkun S, Komurcu S, Erkisi M, Demirkazik A, Senler FC, Sencan O, Büyükcelik A, Boruban C, Onur H, Zengin N, Sak SD; Turkish Oncology Group. Cisplatin plus oral etoposide (EoP) combination is more effective than paclitaxel in patients with advanced breast cancer pretreated with anthracyclines: a randomised phase III trial of Turkish Oncology Group. Br J Cancer. 2005 Feb 28;92(4):639-44. link to original article link to PMC article contains protocol PubMed
TAX 311: Jones SE, Erban J, Overmoyer B, Budd GT, Hutchins L, Lower E, Laufman L, Sundaram S, Urba WJ, Pritchard KI, Mennel R, Richards D, Olsen S, Meyers ML, Ravdin PM. Randomized phase III study of docetaxel compared with paclitaxel in metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Aug 20;23(24):5542-51. link to original article contains protocol PubMed NCT00002662
CA012-0: Gradishar WJ, Tjulandin S, Davidson N, Shaw H, Desai N, Bhar P, Hawkins M, O'Shaughnessy J. Phase III trial of nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel compared with polyethylated castor oil-based paclitaxel in women with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Nov 1;23(31):7794-803. Epub 2005 Sep 19. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00046527
CALGB 9840: Seidman AD, Berry D, Cirrincione C, Harris L, Muss H, Marcom PK, Gipson G, Burstein H, Lake D, Shapiro CL, Ungaro P, Norton L, Winer E, Hudis C. Randomized phase III trial of weekly compared with every-3-weeks paclitaxel for metastatic breast cancer, with trastuzumab for all HER-2 overexpressors and random assignment to trastuzumab or not in HER-2 nonoverexpressors: final results of Cancer and Leukemia Group B protocol 9840. J Clin Oncol. 2008 Apr 1;26(10):1642-9. link to original article PubMed NCT00003440
RIBBON-2: Brufsky AM, Hurvitz S, Perez E, Swamy R, Valero V, O'Neill V, Rugo HS. RIBBON-2: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy for second-line treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Nov 10;29(32):4286-93. Epub 2011 Oct 11. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00281697

Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab

back to top

Regimen variant #1, 90 mg/m² 3 weeks out of 4

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Brufsky et al. 2011 (RIBBON-2)	2006-2008	Phase 3 (E-esc)	1. Capecitabine 2. Docetaxel 3. Gemcitabine 4. Paclitaxel 5. nab-Paclitaxel 6. Vinorelbine	Superior PFS Median PFS: 7.2 vs 5.1 mo (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.64-0.93)

Chemotherapy

Paclitaxel (Taxol) 90 mg/m² IV over 60 minutes once per day on days 1, 8, 15

Targeted therapy

Bevacizumab (Avastin) 10 mg/kg IV once per day on days 1 & 15

28-day cycles

Regimen variant #2, 175 mg/m² q3wk

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Brufsky et al. 2011 (RIBBON-2)	2006-2008	Phase 3 (E-esc)	1. Capecitabine 2. Docetaxel 3. Gemcitabine 4. Paclitaxel 5. nab-Paclitaxel 6. Vinorelbine	Superior PFS Median PFS: 7.2 vs 5.1 mo (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.64-0.93)

Chemotherapy

Paclitaxel (Taxol) 175 mg/m² IV once on day 1

Targeted therapy

Bevacizumab (Avastin) 15 mg/kg IV once on day 1

21-day cycles

References

RIBBON-2: Brufsky AM, Hurvitz S, Perez E, Swamy R, Valero V, O'Neill V, Rugo HS. RIBBON-2: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy for second-line treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Nov 10;29(32):4286-93. Epub 2011 Oct 11. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00281697

nab-Paclitaxel monotherapy

back to top

Example orders

Example orders for Paclitaxel, nanoparticle albumin-bound (Abraxane) in breast cancer

Regimen variant #1, 100 mg/m² weekly

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)	2011-2013	Phase 3 (C)	1. Capecitabine & Bevacizumab 2. Docetaxel & Bevacizumab 3. Doxorubicin & Bevacizumab 4. NPLD & Bevacizumab 5. PLD & Bevacizumab 6. Gemcitabine & Bevacizumab 7. nab-Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab	Inferior PFS

Note: the details of this regimen are minimal in the manuscript; it is unclear if this is truly given once per week or given in a 3 weeks on, 1 week off schedule.

Chemotherapy

Paclitaxel, nanoparticle albumin-bound (Abraxane) 100 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1, 8, 15, 22

28-day cycles

Regimen variant #2, 260 mg/m² q3wk

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Gradishar et al. 2005 (CA012-0)	2001-2002	Phase 3 (E-RT-switch-ic)	Paclitaxel	Superior TTP Median TTP: 23 vs 16.9 weeks (HR 0.75)
Brufsky et al. 2011 (RIBBON-2)	2006-2008	Phase 3 (C)	1. Capecitabine & Bevacizumab 2. Docetaxel & Bevacizumab 3. Gemcitabine & Bevacizumab 4. Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab 5. nab-Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab 6. Vinorelbine & Bevacizumab	Inferior PFS
von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)	2011-2013	Phase 3 (C)	1. Capecitabine & Bevacizumab 2. Docetaxel & Bevacizumab 3. Doxorubicin & Bevacizumab 4. NPLD & Bevacizumab 5. PLD & Bevacizumab 6. Gemcitabine & Bevacizumab 7. nab-Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab	Inferior PFS

Chemotherapy

Paclitaxel, nanoparticle albumin-bound (Abraxane) 260 mg/m² IV over 30 minutes once on day 1

Supportive medications

CA012-0: No corticosteroid or antihistamine premedication

21-day cycles

Regimen variant #3, 300 mg/m² q3wk

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence
Ibrahim et al. 2005	1999-2001	Phase II (RT)

Chemotherapy

Paclitaxel, nanoparticle albumin-bound (Abraxane) 300 mg/m² IV over 30 minutes once on day 1

21-day cycles

References

Ibrahim NK, Samuels B, Page R, Doval D, Patel KM, Rao SC, Nair MK, Bhar P, Desai N, Hortobagyi GN. Multicenter phase II trial of ABI-007, an albumin-bound paclitaxel, in women with metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Sep 1;23(25):6019-26. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
CA012-0: Gradishar WJ, Tjulandin S, Davidson N, Shaw H, Desai N, Bhar P, Hawkins M, O'Shaughnessy J. Phase III trial of nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel compared with polyethylated castor oil-based paclitaxel in women with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Nov 1;23(31):7794-803. Epub 2005 Sep 19. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00046527
RIBBON-2: Brufsky AM, Hurvitz S, Perez E, Swamy R, Valero V, O'Neill V, Rugo HS. RIBBON-2: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy for second-line treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Nov 10;29(32):4286-93. Epub 2011 Oct 11. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00281697
TANIA: von Minckwitz G, Puglisi F, Cortes J, Vrdoljak E, Marschner N, Zielinski C, Villanueva C, Romieu G, Lang I, Ciruelos E, De Laurentiis M, Veyret C, de Ducla S, Freudensprung U, Srock S, Gligorov J. Bevacizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone as second-line treatment for patients with HER2-negative locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer after first-line treatment with bevacizumab plus chemotherapy (TANIA): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014 Oct;15(11):1269-78. Epub 2014 Sep 28. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT01250379
1. Update: Vrdoljak E, Marschner N, Zielinski C, Gligorov J, Cortes J, Puglisi F, Aapro M, Fallowfield L, Fontana A, Inbar M, Kahan Z, Welt A, Lévy C, Brain E, Pivot X, Putzu C, González Martín A, de Ducla S, Easton V, von Minckwitz G. Final results of the TANIA randomised phase III trial of bevacizumab after progression on first-line bevacizumab therapy for HER2-negative locally recurrent/metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2016 Nov;27(11):2046-2052. Epub 2016 Aug 8. link to original article PubMed

Paclitaxel, nanoparticle albumin-bound & Bevacizumab

back to top

Example orders

Example orders for Paclitaxel, nanoparticle albumin-bound & Bevacizumab in breast cancer

Regimen variant #1, 100 mg/m² weekly

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)	2011-2013	Phase 3 (E-esc)	1. Capecitabine 2. Docetaxel 3. Doxorubicin 4. NPLD 5. PLD 6. Gemcitabine 7. nab-Paclitaxel	Superior PFS Median PFS: 6.3 vs 4.2 mo (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61-0.93)

Note: the schedule of bevacizumab is inferred, as there was insufficient detail in the description in the manuscript.

Chemotherapy

Paclitaxel, nanoparticle albumin-bound (Abraxane) 100 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1, 8, 15, 22

Targeted therapy

Bevacizumab (Avastin) 10 mg/kg IV once per day on days 1 & 15

28-day cycles

Regimen variant #2, 260 mg/m² q3wk

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Brufsky et al. 2011 (RIBBON-2)	2006-2008	Phase 3 (E-esc)	1. Capecitabine 2. Docetaxel 3. Gemcitabine 4. Paclitaxel 5. nab-Paclitaxel 6. Vinorelbine	Superior PFS Median PFS: 7.2 vs 5.1 mo (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.64-0.93)
von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)	2011-2013	Phase 3 (E-esc)	1. Capecitabine 2. Docetaxel 3. Doxorubicin 4. NPLD 5. PLD 6. Gemcitabine 7. nab-Paclitaxel	Superior PFS Median PFS: 6.3 vs 4.2 mo (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61-0.93)

Chemotherapy

Paclitaxel, nanoparticle albumin-bound (Abraxane) 260 mg/m² IV once on day 1

Targeted therapy

Bevacizumab (Avastin) 15 mg/kg IV once on day 1

21-day cycles

References

RIBBON-2: Brufsky AM, Hurvitz S, Perez E, Swamy R, Valero V, O'Neill V, Rugo HS. RIBBON-2: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy for second-line treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Nov 10;29(32):4286-93. Epub 2011 Oct 11. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00281697
TANIA: von Minckwitz G, Puglisi F, Cortes J, Vrdoljak E, Marschner N, Zielinski C, Villanueva C, Romieu G, Lang I, Ciruelos E, De Laurentiis M, Veyret C, de Ducla S, Freudensprung U, Srock S, Gligorov J. Bevacizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone as second-line treatment for patients with HER2-negative locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer after first-line treatment with bevacizumab plus chemotherapy (TANIA): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014 Oct;15(11):1269-78. Epub 2014 Sep 28. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT01250379
1. Update: Vrdoljak E, Marschner N, Zielinski C, Gligorov J, Cortes J, Puglisi F, Aapro M, Fallowfield L, Fontana A, Inbar M, Kahan Z, Welt A, Lévy C, Brain E, Pivot X, Putzu C, González Martín A, de Ducla S, Easton V, von Minckwitz G. Final results of the TANIA randomised phase III trial of bevacizumab after progression on first-line bevacizumab therapy for HER2-negative locally recurrent/metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2016 Nov;27(11):2046-2052. Epub 2016 Aug 8. link to original article PubMed

Vinorelbine monotherapy

back to top

Regimen variant #1, 25 mg/m² weekly

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Gasparini et al. 1994	1991-1993	Phase II
Zelek et al. 2001	1997-1999	Phase II
Decker et al. 2019 (VicTORia)	2011-2016	Randomized Phase II (C)	Everolimus & Vinorelbine	Did not meet primary endpoint of PFS
Yuan et al. 2019 (E7389-C086-304)	2013-2015	Phase 3 (C)	Eribulin	Seems to have inferior PFS

Chemotherapy

Vinorelbine (Navelbine) 25 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1, 8, 15

21-day cycles

Regimen variant #2, 30 mg/m² weekly

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Jones et al. 1995a	1990-1992	Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)	Melphalan	Seems to have superior OS
Keller et al. 2004	NR	Phase 3 (C)	1. Mitomycin & Vinblastine 2. PLD	Did not meet primary endpoint of PFS

Chemotherapy

Vinorelbine (Navelbine) 30 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1, 8, 15

21-day cycles

Regimen variant #3, 30 mg/m² q3wk

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Brufsky et al. 2011 (RIBBON-2)	2006-2008	Phase 3 (C)	1. Capecitabine & Bevacizumab 2. Docetaxel & Bevacizumab 3. Gemcitabine & Bevacizumab 4. Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab 5. nab-Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab 6. Vinorelbine & Bevacizumab	Inferior PFS

Chemotherapy

Vinorelbine (Navelbine) 30 mg/m² IV once on day 1

21-day cycles

Regimen variant #4, 30 mg/m² 2 out of 3 weeks

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Martín et al. 2007 (GEICAM 2000-04)	2001-2005	Phase 3 (C)	Gemcitabine & Vinorelbine	Inferior PFS

Chemotherapy

Vinorelbine (Navelbine) 30 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8

21-day cycles

References

Gasparini G, Caffo O, Barni S, Frontini L, Testolin A, Guglielmi RB, Ambrosini G. Vinorelbine is an active antiproliferative agent in pretreated advanced breast cancer patients: a phase II study. J Clin Oncol. 1994 Oct;12(10):2094-101. link to original article PubMed
Jones S, Winer E, Vogel C, Laufman L, Hutchins L, O'Rourke M, Lembersky B, Budman D, Bigley J, Hohneker J. Randomized comparison of vinorelbine and melphalan in anthracycline-refractory advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1995 Oct;13(10):2567-74. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
Zelek L, Barthier S, Riofrio M, Fizazi K, Rixe O, Delord JP, Le Cesne A, Spielmann M. Weekly vinorelbine is an effective palliative regimen after failure with anthracyclines and taxanes in metastatic breast carcinoma. Cancer. 2001 Nov 1;92(9):2267-72. link to original article PubMed
Keller AM, Mennel RG, Georgoulias VA, Nabholtz JM, Erazo A, Lluch A, Vogel CL, Kaufmann M, von Minckwitz G, Henderson IC, Mellars L, Alland L, Tendler C. Randomized phase III trial of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin versus vinorelbine or mitomycin C plus vinblastine in women with taxane-refractory advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2004 Oct 1;22(19):3893-901. link to original article contains protocol PubMed
GEICAM 2000-04: Martín M, Ruiz A, Muñoz M, Balil A, García-Mata J, Calvo L, Carrasco E, Mahillo E, Casado A, García-Saenz JA, Escudero MJ, Guillem V, Jara C, Ribelles N, Salas F, Soto C, Morales-Vasquez F, Rodríguez CA, Adrover E, Mel JR; GEICAM. Gemcitabine plus vinorelbine versus vinorelbine monotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer previously treated with anthracyclines and taxanes: final results of the phase III Spanish Breast Cancer Research Group (GEICAM) trial. Lancet Oncol. 2007 Mar;8(3):219-25. link to original article contains protocol PubMed NCT00128310
RIBBON-2: Brufsky AM, Hurvitz S, Perez E, Swamy R, Valero V, O'Neill V, Rugo HS. RIBBON-2: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy for second-line treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Nov 10;29(32):4286-93. Epub 2011 Oct 11. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00281697
E7389-C086-304: Yuan P, Hu X, Sun T, Li W, Zhang Q, Cui S, Cheng Y, Ouyang Q, Wang X, Chen Z, Hiraiwa M, Saito K, Funasaka S, Xu B. Eribulin mesilate versus vinorelbine in women with locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer: A randomised clinical trial. Eur J Cancer. 2019 May;112:57-65. Epub 2019 Mar 29. link to original article contains protocol PubMed NCT02225470
VicTORia: Decker T, Marschner N, Muendlein A, Welt A, Hagen V, Rauh J, Schröder H, Jaehnig P, Potthoff K, Lerchenmüller C. VicTORia: a randomised phase II study to compare vinorelbine in combination with the mTOR inhibitor everolimus versus vinorelbine monotherapy for second-line chemotherapy in advanced HER2-negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2019 Aug;176(3):637-647. Epub 2019 May 21. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT01520103
EVER-132-002: NCT04639986
TROPICS-02: NCT03901339

Vinorelbine & Bevacizumab

back to top

Example orders

Example orders for Vinorelbine and Bevacizumab in breast cancer

Regimen variant #1, vinorelbine 25 mg/m² weekly

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence
Burstein et al. 2008	2001-2002	Phase II

Chemotherapy

Vinorelbine (Navelbine) 25 mg/m² IV once per day on days 1 & 8

Targeted therapy

Bevacizumab (Avastin) 10 mg/kg IV once on day 1

14-day cycles

Regimen variant #2, vinorelbine 30 mg/m² q3wk

Study	Years of enrollment	Evidence	Comparator	Comparative Efficacy
Brufsky et al. 2011 (RIBBON-2)	2006-2008	Phase 3 (E-esc)	1. Capecitabine 2. Docetaxel 3. Gemcitabine 4. Paclitaxel 5. nab-Paclitaxel 6. Vinorelbine	Superior PFS Median PFS: 7.2 vs 5.1 mo (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.64-0.93)

Chemotherapy

Vinorelbine (Navelbine) 30 mg/m² IV once on day 1

Targeted therapy

Bevacizumab (Avastin) 15 mg/kg IV once on day 1

21-day cycles

References

Burstein HJ, Chen YH, Parker LM, Savoie J, Younger J, Kuter I, Ryan PD, Garber JE, Chen H, Campos SM, Shulman LN, Harris LN, Gelman R, Winer EP. VEGF as a marker for outcome among advanced breast cancer patients receiving anti-VEGF therapy with bevacizumab and vinorelbine chemotherapy. Clin Cancer Res. 2008 Dec 1;14(23):7871-7. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed
RIBBON-2: Brufsky AM, Hurvitz S, Perez E, Swamy R, Valero V, O'Neill V, Rugo HS. RIBBON-2: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy for second-line treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Nov 10;29(32):4286-93. Epub 2011 Oct 11. link to original article contains verified protocol PubMed NCT00281697

Additional resources

back to top

Patient information

Alcohol and risk of breast cancer infographic

@@ Line 81: / Line 81: @@
 |[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc7251809/ Kim et al. 2020 (NEST)]
 |2012-2014
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[Breast_cancer,_ER-positive#Goserelin_.26_Tamoxifen|Goserelin & Tamoxifen]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Inconclusive whether non-inferior clinical response
@@ Line 110: / Line 110: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.05.078 von Minckwitz et al. 2005 (GeparDuo)]
 |1999-2001
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |Dose-dense Docetaxel & Doxorubicin (ddAT)
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior pCR rate
@@ Line 149: / Line 149: @@
 |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3068051/ Ellis et al. 2011 (SWOG 0012)]
 |2001-2005
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#AC-T|AC-T]]; daily cyclophosphamide
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of pCR rate
@@ Line 187: / Line 187: @@
 |[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10549-007-9672-y Lee et al. 2007]
 |2002-2005
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[#Cyclophosphamide_.26_Doxorubicin_.28AC.29|AC]]
 | style="background-color:#91cf60" |Seems to have superior pCR rate
@@ Line 219: / Line 219: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1997.15.7.2483 Fisher et al. 1997 (NSABP B-18)]
 |1988-1993
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[#Cyclophosphamide_.26_Doxorubicin_.28AC.29_2|Adjuvant AC]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior resectability
@@ Line 225: / Line 225: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2003.12.005 Bear et al. 2003 (NSABP B-27)]
 |1995-2000
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#NSABP_B-27|See link]]
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#NSABP_B-27|See link]]
@@ Line 231: / Line 231: @@
 |[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10549-007-9672-y Lee et al. 2007]
 |2002-2005
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Capecitabine_.26_Docetaxel_.28TX.29|TX]]
 | style="background-color:#fc8d59" |Seems to have inferior pCR rate
@@ Line 237: / Line 237: @@
 |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3401076/ Bear et al. 2012 (NSABP B-40)]
 |2007-2010
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#NSABP_B-40|See link]]
 | style="background-color:#fc8d59" |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#NSABP_B-40|See link]]
@@ Line 265: / Line 265: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdh175 Smith et al. 2004 (TOPIC)]
 |1995-1999
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |ECisF
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoints of RFS/OS
@@ Line 271: / Line 271: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdi276 Chua et al. 2005 (TOPIC 2)]
 |1998-2002
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |VE
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of RFS
@@ Line 277: / Line 277: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.06.156 Evans et al. 2005]
 |1999-2001
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |AD
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of ORR
@@ Line 325: / Line 325: @@
 |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3401076/ Bear et al. 2012 (NSABP B-40)]
 |2007-2010
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#NSABP_B-40|See link]]
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#NSABP_B-40|See link]]
@@ Line 400: / Line 400: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdq713 Untch et al. 2011 (PREPARE)]
 |2002-2005
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#PREPARE|See link]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#PREPARE|See link]]
@@ Line 412: / Line 412: @@
 |[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(13)70554-0/fulltext Earl et al. 2013 (Neo-tAnGo)]
 |2005-2007
-|style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+|style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#Neo-tAnGo|See link]]
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#Neo-tAnGo|See link]]
@@ Line 418: / Line 418: @@
 |[https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1111065 von Minckwitz et al. 2012 (GeparQuinto)]
 |2007-2010
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#GeparQuinto|See link]]
 | style="background-color:#fc8d59" |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#GeparQuinto|See link]]
@@ Line 501: / Line 501: @@
 |[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ijc.31217 Chen et al. 2017 (CBCRT01)]
 |2011-2015
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |DEE
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior ORR
@@ Line 524: / Line 524: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2006.09.1777 Steger et al. 2007 (ABCSG-14)]
 |1999-2002
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |[[#Docetaxel_.26_Epirubicin_.28DE.29|ED]] x 3
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior pCR rate
@@ Line 530: / Line 530: @@
 |[https://www.ejso.com/article/S0748-7983(09)00003-1/fulltext Han et al. 2009]
 |2003-2005
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |[[#Docetaxel_.26_Epirubicin_.28DE.29|ED]] x 4
 | style="background-color:#91cf60" |Seems to have superior pCR rate
@@ Line 536: / Line 536: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdt508 Steger et al. 2013 (ABCSG-24)]
 |2004-2008
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#EDC|EDC]]
 | style="background-color:#fc8d59" |Seems to have inferior pCR rate
@@ Line 572: / Line 572: @@
 |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3401076/ Bear et al. 2012 (NSABP B-40)]
 |2007-2010
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#NSABP_B-40|See link]]
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#NSABP_B-40|See link]]
@@ Line 595: / Line 595: @@
 |[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(15)70137-3/fulltext Earl et al. 2015 (ARTemis)]
 |2009-2013
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Docetaxel_.26_Bevacizumab|Docetaxel & Bevacizumab]]
 | style="background-color:#fc8d59" |Seems to have inferior pCR rate
@@ Line 618: / Line 618: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2003.12.005 Bear et al. 2003 (NSABP B-27)]
 |1995-2000
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#NSABP_B-27|See link]]
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#NSABP_B-27|See link]]
@@ Line 624: / Line 624: @@
 |[https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1111065 von Minckwitz et al. 2012 (GeparQuinto)]
 |2007-2010
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#GeparQuinto|See link]]
 | style="background-color:#fc8d59" |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#GeparQuinto|See link]]
@@ Line 667: / Line 667: @@
 |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3401076/ Bear et al. 2012 (NSABP B-40)]
 |2007-2010
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#NSABP_B-40|See link]]
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#NSABP_B-40|See link]]
@@ Line 692: / Line 692: @@
 |[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(15)70137-3/fulltext Earl et al. 2015 (ARTemis)]
 |2009-2013
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |[[#Docetaxel_monotherapy|Docetaxel]]
 | style="background-color:#91cf60" |Seems to have superior pCR rate
@@ Line 729: / Line 729: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdt508 Steger et al. 2013 (ABCSG-24)]
 |2004-2008
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |[[#Docetaxel_.26_Epirubicin_.28DE.29|ED]]
 | style="background-color:#91cf60" |Seems to have superior pCR rate
@@ Line 763: / Line 763: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2008.20.3133 Untch et al. 2009 (TECHNO)]
 |1998-2002
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |ddE, then ddP
 | style="background-color:#fc8d59" |Seems to have inferior OS
@@ Line 769: / Line 769: @@
 |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2360722/ Frasci et al. 2006]
 |1999-2004
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#PET|PET]]
 | style="background-color:#fc8d59" |Seems to have inferior pCR rate
@@ Line 804: / Line 804: @@
 |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3233286/ Arun et al. 2011 (MDACC 91-0156)]
 |1992-1997
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |DI FAC
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of pCR rate
@@ Line 828: / Line 828: @@
 |[https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/030089169708300511 Baldini et al. 1997]
 |NR in abstract
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |DES-CAF
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of pCR rate
@@ Line 852: / Line 852: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1999.17.11.3412 Buzdar et al. 1999]
 |1994-1998
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |Paclitaxel; q3wk x 4
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS
@@ Line 886: / Line 886: @@
 |[https://www.ejcancer.com/article/0959-8049(94)90537-1/pdf Scholl et al. 1994 (S6)]
 |1986-1990
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[#FAC_2|Adjuvant FAC]]
 | style="background-color:#91cf60" |Seems to have superior OS
@@ Line 969: / Line 969: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdg069 Baldini et al. 2003]
 |1992-1997
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |Dose-dense FEC
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of pCR rate
@@ Line 993: / Line 993: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2001.19.22.4224 van der Hage et al. 2001 (EORTC 10902)]
 |1991-1999
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[#FEC_2|FEC]]; adjuvant
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of OS
@@ Line 1,056: / Line 1,056: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.06.232 Green et al. 2005]
 |1998-2001
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |Paclitaxel; q3wk
 | style="background-color:#91cf60" |Seems to have superior pCR rate
@@ Line 1,062: / Line 1,062: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2011.36.2079 Kelly et al. 2012 (MDACC ID01-580)]
 |2002-2008
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |XT
 |style="background-color:#ffffbf"|Did not meet primary endpoint of RFS
@@ Line 1,068: / Line 1,068: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(15)00542-2 Untch et al. 2016 (GeparSepto)]
 |2012-2013
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#nab-Paclitaxel_monotherapy|nab-Paclitaxel]]
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior pCR rate
@@ Line 1,095: / Line 1,095: @@
 |[https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaoncology/fullarticle/2668528 Gianni et al. 2018 (ETNA)]
 |2013-2015
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#nab-Paclitaxel_monotherapy|nab-Paclitaxel]]
 |style="background-color:#ffffbf"|Did not meet primary endpoint of pCR rate
@@ Line 1,138: / Line 1,138: @@
 |[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(13)70554-0/fulltext Earl et al. 2013 (Neo-tAnGo)]
 |2005-2007
-|style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+|style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#Neo-tAnGo|See link]]
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#Neo-tAnGo|See link]]
@@ Line 1,177: / Line 1,177: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(15)00542-2 Untch et al. 2016 (GeparSepto)]
 |2012-2013
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[#Paclitaxel_monotherapy.2C_weekly|Paclitaxel]]; weekly
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior pCR rate
@@ Line 1,212: / Line 1,212: @@
 |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2360722/ Frasci et al. 2006]
 |1999-2004
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |[[#Epirubicin_.26_Paclitaxel_.28EP.29|EP]]
 | style="background-color:#91cf60" |Seems to have superior pCR rate
@@ Line 1,246: / Line 1,246: @@
 |[https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/100/8/542/931241 von Minckwitz et al. 2008 (GeparTrio)]
 |2002-2005
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[#TAC_.28Taxotere.29|TAC]] x 2, then NX x 4
 | style="background-color:#eeee01" |Non-inferior sonographic response
@@ Line 1,252: / Line 1,252: @@
 |[https://www.ejcancer.com/article/S0959-8049(13)00487-5/fulltext Vriens et al. 2013 (INTENS)]
 |2006-2009
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[#Cyclophosphamide_.26_Doxorubicin_.28AC.29|AC]], then [[#Docetaxel_monotherapy|T]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of pCR rate
@@ Line 1,371: / Line 1,371: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2005.03.5196 Basser et al. 2006 (IBCSG 15-95)]
 |1995-2000
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |DI-EC
 | style="background-color:#fc8d59" |Seems to have inferior DFS<sup>1</sup>
@@ Line 1,413: / Line 1,413: @@
 |rowspan=2|[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2935316/ Swain et al. 2010 (NSABP B-30)]
 |rowspan=2|1999-2004
-|rowspan=2 style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+|rowspan=2 style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |1. AT
 | style="background-color:#91cf60" |Seems to have superior OS
@@ Line 1,422: / Line 1,422: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2010.28.5437 Eiermann et al. 2011 (BCIRG-005)]
 |2000-2003
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[#TAC_.28Taxotere.29_2|TAC]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS60
@@ Line 1,463: / Line 1,463: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2003.09.081 Citron et al. 2003 (CALGB 9741)]
 |1997-1999
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#CALGB_9741|See link]]
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#CALGB_9741|See link]]
@@ Line 1,469: / Line 1,469: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.24.1000 Loesch et al. 2010]
 |2000-2002
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#Loesch_et_al._2010|See link]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#Loesch_et_al._2010|See link]]
@@ Line 1,475: / Line 1,475: @@
 |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2799234/ Burnell et al. 2009 (NCIC-CTG MA.21)]
 |2000-2005
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#NCIC_CTG_MA.21|See link]]
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#NCIC_CTG_MA.21|See link]]
@@ Line 1,505: / Line 1,505: @@
 |[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc7007289/ Fehrenbacher et al. 2019 (NSABP B-47)]
 |2011-2015
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |1. AC-T & Trastuzumab<br>2. Dose-dense AC-T & Trastuzumab<br>3. TC & Trastuzumab
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of IDFS
@@ Line 1,550: / Line 1,550: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2003.09.081 Citron et al. 2003 (CALGB 9741)]
 |1997-1999
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#CALGB_9741|See link]]
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#CALGB_9741|See link]]
@@ Line 1,598: / Line 1,598: @@
 |[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc7007289/ Fehrenbacher et al. 2019 (NSABP B-47)]
 |2011-2015
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |1. AC-T & Trastuzumab<br>2. Dose-dense AC-T & Trastuzumab<br>3. TC & Trastuzumab
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of IDFS
@@ Line 1,642: / Line 1,642: @@
 |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3401076/ Bear et al. 2012 (NSABP B-40)]
 |2007-2010
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#NSABP_B-40|See link]]
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#NSABP_B-40|See link]]
@@ Line 1,672: / Line 1,672: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.61.9510 Martín et al. 2015 (GEICAM 2003-10)]
 |2004-2007
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#GEICAM.2F2003-10|See link]]
 | style="background-color:#fc8d59" |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#GEICAM.2F2003-10|See link]]
@@ Line 1,678: / Line 1,678: @@
 |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5489700/ Cameron et al. 2017 (TACT2)]
 |2005-2008
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-de-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-de-esc)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#TACT2|See link]]
 | style="background-color:#eeee01" |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#TACT2|See link]]
@@ Line 1,702: / Line 1,702: @@
 |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3082436/ Muss et al. 2009 (CALGB 49907)]
 |2001-2006
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-de-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-de-esc)
 |Physician's choice of:<br> 1. [[#Cyclophosphamide_.26_Doxorubicin_.28AC.29_2|AC]] x 4<br> 2. [[#CMF|CMF]] x 6
 | style="background-color:#fc8d59" |Seems to have inferior OS
@@ Line 1,708: / Line 1,708: @@
 |[https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1612645 Masuda et al. 2017 (CREATE-X)]
 |2007-2012
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |Standard therapy
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior OS <br>(HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.39-0.90)
@@ Line 1,744: / Line 1,744: @@
 |[https://insights.ovid.com/pubmed?pmid=11474254 Ron et al. 2001]
 |1988-1992
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[Breast_cancer_-_historical#FNC|CNF]]
 | style="background-color:#fc8d59" |Seems to have inferior DFS
@@ Line 1,768: / Line 1,768: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1991.9.12.2134 Buzzoni et al. 1991 (Milan trial)]
 |1982-1987
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#Buzzoni_et_al._1991|See link]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#Buzzoni_et_al._1991|See link]]
@@ Line 1,774: / Line 1,774: @@
 |[https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199710023371401 Overgaard et al. 1997 (DBCG 82b)]
 |1982-1989
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ooc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ooc)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#DBCG_82b|See link]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#DBCG_82b|See link]]
@@ Line 1,800: / Line 1,800: @@
 |[https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/96/14/1076/2520847 Leonard et al. 2004]
 |1995-1999
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |Cyclophosphamide & Thiotepa with auto HSCT
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of RFS
@@ Line 1,825: / Line 1,825: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1995.13.1.33 Clahsen et al. 1995 (EORTC 09771)]
 |1976-1980
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |[[Breast_cancer_-_null_regimens#Observation|Observation]]
 | style="background-color:#91cf60" |Seems to have superior OS
@@ Line 1,849: / Line 1,849: @@
 |[https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa052084 Poole et al. 2006 (BR9601)]
 |1996-2001
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#BR9601|See link]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#BR9601|See link]]
@@ Line 1,874: / Line 1,874: @@
 |[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PII0140-6736(93)90812-U/fulltext Stewart et al. 1993]
 |1980-1990
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |1. [[Breast_cancer_-_historical#CMFP|CMFP]]<br> 2. Oophorectomy<br> 3. Oophorectomy & Prednisolone
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of EFS
@@ Line 1,880: / Line 1,880: @@
 |[https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa052084 Poole et al. 2006 (BR9601)]
 |1996-2001
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Epirubicin_monotherapy|Epirubicin]], then [[#CMF|CMF]] x 4
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior OS
@@ Line 1,932: / Line 1,932: @@
 |[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12282-009-0132-x Kimura et al. 2009]
 |1996-2000
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#FEC_2|FEC]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS
@@ Line 1,956: / Line 1,956: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2004.07.026 Zander et al. 2004]
 |1993-2000
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |Cyclophosphamide, Mitoxantrone, Thiotepa with auto HSCT
 | style="background-color:#fee08b" |Might have inferior EFS
@@ Line 1,981: / Line 1,981: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2002.05.042 Jonat et al. 2002 (ZEBRA)]
 |1990-1996
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |Goserelin x 2 y
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS
@@ Line 1,987: / Line 1,987: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2006.08.8534 Schmid et al. 2007 (TABLE)]
 |1995-1998
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[Breast_cancer,_ER-positive#Leuprolide_monotherapy|Leuprolide]]
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior OS
@@ Line 2,011: / Line 2,011: @@
 |rowspan=3|[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01806239 Brincker et al. 1983 (DBCG 77B)]
 |rowspan=3|1977-1983
-|rowspan=3 style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+|rowspan=3 style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |1. Cyclophosphamide
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of RFS
@@ Line 2,042: / Line 2,042: @@
 |[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(84)92684-9/fulltext Howell et al. 1984]
 |1976-1983
-|style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+|style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |[[Breast_cancer_-_null_regimens#Observation|Observation]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior RFS
@@ Line 2,066: / Line 2,066: @@
 |[https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa052084 Poole et al. 2006 (NEAT)]
 |1996-2001
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#BR9601|See link]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#BR9601|See link]]
@@ Line 2,072: / Line 2,072: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2008.19.2567 Gianni et al. 2009 (ECTO)]
 |1996-2002
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#ECTO|See link]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#ECTO|See link]]
@@ Line 2,084: / Line 2,084: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdu564 Perrone et al. 2014 (ELDA)]
 |2003-2011
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Docetaxel_monotherapy_2|Docetaxel]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS
@@ Line 2,090: / Line 2,090: @@
 |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5489700/ Cameron et al. 2017 (TACT2)]
 |2005-2008
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#TACT2|See link]]
 | style="background-color:#eeee01" |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#TACT2|See link]]
@@ Line 2,116: / Line 2,116: @@
 |[https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199710023371402 Ragaz et al. 1997]
 |1978-1986
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |CMF & RT
 | style="background-color:#fc8d59" |Seems to have inferior OS
@@ Line 2,122: / Line 2,122: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1996.14.1.35 Coombes et al. 1996]
 |1984-1992
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#FEC_2|FEC]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoints of RFS/OS
@@ Line 2,128: / Line 2,128: @@
 |[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10549-007-9844-9 Taucher et al. 2007 (ABCSG-07)]
 |1991-1999
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |CMF; neoadjuvant
 | style="background-color:#91cf60" |Seems to have superior RFS
@@ Line 2,134: / Line 2,134: @@
 |[https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa052084 Poole et al. 2006 (NEAT)]
 |1996-2001
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Epirubicin_monotherapy|Epirubicin]], then [[#CMF|CMF]] x 4
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior OS
@@ Line 2,140: / Line 2,140: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdu564 Perrone et al. 2014 (ELDA)]
 |2003-2011
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Docetaxel_monotherapy_2|Docetaxel]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS
@@ Line 2,165: / Line 2,165: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2008.18.3939 Watanabe et al. 2009 (NSAS BC-01)]
 |1996-2001
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |UFT
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Inconclusive whether non-inferior RFS
@@ Line 2,189: / Line 2,189: @@
 |rowspan = 2|[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1996.14.6.1885 Castiglione-Gertsch et al. 1996 (IBCSG VI)]
 |rowspan = 2|1986-1993
-|rowspan = 2 style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-de-esc)
+|rowspan = 2 style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-de-esc)
 |1. [[#CMF|CMF]] x 6
 | style="background-color:#fc8d59" |Seems to have inferior DFS
@@ Line 2,225: / Line 2,225: @@
 |[https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa052084 Poole et al. 2006 (NEAT)]
 |1996-2001
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#BR9601|See link]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#BR9601|See link]]
@@ Line 2,231: / Line 2,231: @@
 |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5489700/ Cameron et al. 2017 (TACT2)]
 |2005-2008
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#TACT2|See link]]
 | style="background-color:#eeee01" |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#TACT2|See link]]
@@ Line 2,256: / Line 2,256: @@
 |[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/394864 Tancini et al. 1979]
 |1975-NR
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-de-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-de-esc)
 |[[#CMF|CMF]] x 12
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of RFS
@@ Line 2,262: / Line 2,262: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1996.14.1.35 Coombes et al. 1996]
 |1984-1992
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#FEC_2|FEC]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoints of RFS/OS
@@ Line 2,268: / Line 2,268: @@
 |rowspan = 2|[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1996.14.6.1885 Castiglione-Gertsch et al. 1996 (IBCSG VI)]
 |rowspan = 2|1986-1993
-|rowspan = 2 style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+|rowspan = 2 style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |1. [[#CMF|CMF]] x 3
 | style="background-color:#91cf60" |Seems to have superior DFS
@@ Line 2,277: / Line 2,277: @@
 | rowspan="2" |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2001.19.12.3103 Piccart et al. 2001 (Belgian trial)]
 |rowspan=2|1988-1996
-| rowspan="2" style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| rowspan="2" style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |1. [[#Cyclophosphamide_.26_Epirubicin_.28EC.29_2|EC]]; full-dose
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of EFS
@@ Line 2,286: / Line 2,286: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.1998.16.8.2651 Levine et al. 1998 (NCIC-CTG MA.5)]
 |1989-1993
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#FEC_2|CEF]]
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior RFS
@@ Line 2,292: / Line 2,292: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2000.18.17.3125 Amadori et al. 2000]
 |1989-1993
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |[[Breast_cancer_-_null_regimens#Observation|Observation]]
 | style="background-color:#91cf60" |Seems to have superior DFS
@@ Line 2,298: / Line 2,298: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2005.08.071 Hutchins et al. 2005 (INT-0102)]
 |1989-1993
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#FAC_2|CAF]]
 | style="background-color:#fc8d59" |Seems to have inferior OS
@@ Line 2,304: / Line 2,304: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2002.05.042 Jonat et al. 2002 (ZEBRA)]
 |1990-1996
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |Goserelin x 2 y
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS
@@ Line 2,310: / Line 2,310: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2001.19.4.931 Fisher et al. 2001 (NSABP B-23)]
 |1991-1998
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Cyclophosphamide_.26_Doxorubicin_.28AC.29|AC]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of OS
@@ Line 2,316: / Line 2,316: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djk108 Adjuvant Breast Cancer Trials Collaborative Group 2007 (NCRI ABC-CT)]
 |1992-2000
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |[[Breast_cancer_-_null_regimens#Observation|Observation]]
 | style="background-color:#91cf60" |Seems to have superior OS<br>(HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.70-0.99)
@@ Line 2,322: / Line 2,322: @@
 |[https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa052084 Poole et al. 2006 (NEAT)]
 |1996-2001
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Epirubicin_monotherapy|Epirubicin]], then [[#CMF|CMF]] x 4
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior OS
@@ Line 2,328: / Line 2,328: @@
 |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3082436/ Muss et al. 2009 (CALGB 49907)]
 |2001-2006
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Capecitabine_monotherapy|Capecitabine]]
 | style="background-color:#91cf60" |Seems to have superior OS
@@ Line 2,355: / Line 2,355: @@
 |[https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM197602192940801 Bonadonna et al. 1976]
 |1973-1975
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |[[Breast_cancer_-_null_regimens#Observation|Observation]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior RFS
@@ Line 2,361: / Line 2,361: @@
 |[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/394864 Tancini et al. 1979]
 |1975-NR
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#CMF|CMF]] x 6
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of RFS
@@ Line 2,367: / Line 2,367: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1996.14.4.1136 Misset et al. 1996 (OncoFrance)]
 |1978-1981
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[Breast_cancer_-_historical#AVCF|AVCF]]
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior OS
@@ Line 2,373: / Line 2,373: @@
 |[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1097-0142(19900115)65:2%3C200::AID-CNCR2820650203%3E3.0.CO;2-Q/abstract Tormey et al. 1990 (ECOG E5177)]
 |1978-1982
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |1. [[Breast_cancer_-_historical#CMFP|CMFP]]<br> 2. [[Breast_cancer_-_historical#CMFPT|CMFPT]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoints of TTR/OS
@@ Line 2,457: / Line 2,457: @@
 | rowspan="2" |[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(98)09201-0/fulltext Overgaard et al. 1999 (DBCG 82C)]
 |rowspan=2|1982-1990
-| rowspan="2" style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| rowspan="2" style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |1. [[Breast_cancer,_ER-positive#Tamoxifen_monotherapy|Tamoxifen]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior DFS<sup>1</sup>
@@ Line 2,533: / Line 2,533: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2003.09.081 Citron et al. 2003 (CALGB 9741)]
 |1997-1999
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#CALGB_9741|See link]]
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#CALGB_9741|See link]]
@@ Line 2,594: / Line 2,594: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2006.06.5391 Jones et al. 2006 (USOR 9735)]
 |1997-1999
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[#Cyclophosphamide_.26_Doxorubicin_.28AC.29_2|AC]]
 | style="background-color:#91cf60" |Seems to have superior OS
@@ Line 2,600: / Line 2,600: @@
 |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5549453/ Blum et al. 2017 (USOR 06-090)]
 |2007-2009
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#TAC_.28Taxotere.29_2|TAC]]
 | style="background-color:#fc8d59" |Seems to have inferior IDFS
@@ Line 2,606: / Line 2,606: @@
 |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5549453/ Blum et al. 2017 (NSABP-46-I/USOR 07132)]
 |2009-2012
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#TAC_.28Taxotere.29_2|TAC]]
 | style="background-color:#fc8d59" |Seems to have inferior IDFS
@@ Line 2,612: / Line 2,612: @@
 |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5549453/ Blum et al. 2017 (NSABP B-49)]
 |2012-2013
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#TAC_.28Taxotere.29_2|TAC]]
 | style="background-color:#fc8d59" |Seems to have inferior IDFS
@@ Line 2,639: / Line 2,639: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.18.00028 Nitz et al. 2019 (WSG PlanB)]
 |2000-2005
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-de-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-de-esc)
 |[[#Cyclophosphamide_.26_Epirubicin_.28EC.29_2|EC]], then [[#Docetaxel_monotherapy_2|D]]
 | style="background-color:#eeee01" |Non-inferior DFS
@@ Line 2,645: / Line 2,645: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdw274 Mavroudis et al. 2016 (HORG CT/07.17)]
 |2007-2013
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-de-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-de-esc)
 |[[#Dose-dense_FEC|ddFEC]], then [[#Dose-dense_Docetaxel_monotherapy|D]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Inconclusive whether non-inferior DFS36
@@ Line 2,651: / Line 2,651: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2017.72.3494 Ejlertsen et al. 2017 (DBCG 07-READ)]
 |2008-2012
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-de-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-de-esc)
 |[[#Cyclophosphamide_.26_Epirubicin_.28EC.29_2|EC]], then [[#Docetaxel_monotherapy_2|D]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS
@@ Line 2,657: / Line 2,657: @@
 |[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc7007289/ Fehrenbacher et al. 2019 (NSABP B-47)]
 |2011-2015
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |1. AC-T & Trastuzumab<br>2. Dose-dense AC-T & Trastuzumab<br>3. TC & Trastuzumab
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of IDFS
@@ Line 2,699: / Line 2,699: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2006.07.0847 Linden et al. 2007 (INT-0137)]
 |1994-1997
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |A, then C
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS
@@ Line 2,722: / Line 2,722: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1997.15.7.2483 Fisher et al. 1997 (NSABP B-18)]
 |1988-1993
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Cyclophosphamide_.26_Doxorubicin_.28AC.29|AC]]; neoadjuvant
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior resectability
@@ Line 2,728: / Line 2,728: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1997.15.5.1858 Fisher et al. 1997 (NSABP B-22)]
 |1989-1991
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |1. [[#Cyclophosphamide_.26_Doxorubicin_.28AC.29_2|AC]]; intensified<br> 2. [[#Cyclophosphamide_.26_Doxorubicin_.28AC.29_2|AC]]; intensified & increased
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoints of DFS/OS
@@ Line 2,734: / Line 2,734: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2001.19.4.931 Fisher et al. 2001 (NSABP B-23)]
 |1991-1998
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[#CMF|CMF]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of OS
@@ Line 2,752: / Line 2,752: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2003.02.063 Henderson et al. 2003 (INT 0148/CALGB 9344)]
 |1994-1999
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |1. [[#Cyclophosphamide_.26_Doxorubicin_.28AC.29_2|AC]]; high-dose<br> 2. [[#Cyclophosphamide_.26_Doxorubicin_.28AC.29_2|AC]]; very high dose
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS
@@ Line 2,764: / Line 2,764: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2006.06.5391 Jones et al. 2006 (USOR 9735)]
 |1997-1999
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Cyclophosphamide_.26_Docetaxel_.28TC.29|TC]]
 | style="background-color:#fc8d59" |Seems to have inferior OS
@@ Line 2,770: / Line 2,770: @@
 |[https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/100/2/121/1130035 Francis et al. 2008 (BIG 02-98)]
 |1998-2001
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#BIG_02-98|See link]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#BIG_02-98|See link]]
@@ Line 2,776: / Line 2,776: @@
 |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2654376/ Goldstein et al. 2008 (ECOG E2197)]
 |1998-2000
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |AT (Taxotere)
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS
@@ Line 2,788: / Line 2,788: @@
 |[https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/200883 Brain et al. 2005 (RAPP-01)]
 |1999-2003
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |AT (Taxotere)
 | style="background-color:#d3d3d3" |Not reported
@@ Line 2,794: / Line 2,794: @@
 |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3082436/ Muss et al. 2009 (CALGB 49907)]
 |2001-2006
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Capecitabine_monotherapy|Capecitabine]]
 | style="background-color:#91cf60" |Seems to have superior OS
@@ Line 2,800: / Line 2,800: @@
 |[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.30421/abstract Watanabe et al. 2017 (NSAS BC-02)]
 |2001-2006
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#NSAS_BC-02|See link]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#NSAS_BC-02|See link]]
@@ Line 2,806: / Line 2,806: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2018.79.2028 Miller et al. 2018 (ECOG E5103)]
 |2007-2011
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#ECOG_E5103|See link]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#ECOG_E5103|See link]]
@@ Line 2,898: / Line 2,898: @@
 | rowspan="3" |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3494835/ Shulman et al. 2012 (CALGB 40101)]
 | rowspan="3" |2002-2008
-| rowspan="3" style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-de-esc)
+| rowspan="3" style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-de-esc)
 |1. [[#Dose-dense_Cyclophosphamide_.26_Doxorubicin_.28ddAC.29_2|ddAC]] x 6
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of RFS
@@ Line 2,916: / Line 2,916: @@
 |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3757290/ Swain et al. 2013 (NSABP B-38)]
 |2004-2007
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#NSABP_B-38|See link]]
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#NSABP_B-38|See link]]
@@ Line 2,956: / Line 2,956: @@
 |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4268253/ Budd et al. 2014 (SWOG S0221)]
 |2003-2010
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Cyclophosphamide_.26_Doxorubicin_.28AC.29_2|AC]]; continuous
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS
@@ Line 2,962: / Line 2,962: @@
 |[https://www.ejcancer.com/article/S0959-8049(18)30982-1/fulltext van Rossum et al. 2018 (MATADOR)]
 |2004-2012
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[#TAC_.28Taxotere.29_2|TAC]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet secondary endpoints of RFS/OS
@@ Line 3,004: / Line 3,004: @@
 | rowspan="2" |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2001.19.12.3103 Piccart et al. 2001 (Belgian trial)]
 |rowspan=2|1988-1996
-| rowspan="2" style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-de-esc)
+| rowspan="2" style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-de-esc)
 |1. [[#CMF|CMF]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of EFS
@@ Line 3,030: / Line 3,030: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdh016 Pico et al. 2004 (GEICAM 9401)]
 |1995-2000
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-de-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-de-esc)
 |ECT (Tamoxifen)
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS60
@@ Line 3,055: / Line 3,055: @@
 |[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10549-009-0468-0 Polyzos et al. 2009]
 |1995-2004
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#HORG_Polyzos_et_al._2010|See link]]
 | style="background-color:#91cf60" |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#HORG_Polyzos_et_al._2010|See link]]
@@ Line 3,091: / Line 3,091: @@
 |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2361407/ Kümmel et al. 2006]
 |1996-2000
-|style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+|style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#K.C3.BCmmel_et_al._2006|See link]]
 | style="background-color:#fee08b" |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#K.C3.BCmmel_et_al._2006|See link]]
@@ Line 3,103: / Line 3,103: @@
 |[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)62048-1/fulltext Del Mastro et al. 2015 (GIM2)]
 |2003-2006
-|style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+|style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#GIM2|See link]]
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#GIM2|See link]]
@@ Line 3,132: / Line 3,132: @@
 | rowspan="2" |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2001.19.12.3103 Piccart et al. 2001 (Belgian trial)]
 |rowspan=2|1988-1996
-| rowspan="2" style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| rowspan="2" style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |1. [[#CMF|CMF]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of EFS
@@ Line 3,158: / Line 3,158: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2003.03.034 Papaldo et al. 2003]
 |1991-1994
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |EC & Lonidamine
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS60
@@ Line 3,164: / Line 3,164: @@
 |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3362268/ Vici et al. 2011 (GOIM 9902)]
 |1999-2005
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |D-EC
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS60
@@ Line 3,208: / Line 3,208: @@
 |[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)67784-7/fulltext Nitz et al. 2005 (WSG AM-01)]
 |1995-2002
-|style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+|style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Cyclophosphamide_.26_Epirubicin_.28EC.29_2|EC]], then [[Breast_cancer_-_historical#ECT.2C_then_auto_HSCT|ECT with auto HSCT]] x 2
 | style="background-color:#fc8d59" |Seems to have inferior OS
@@ Line 3,214: / Line 3,214: @@
 |[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)62048-1/fulltext Del Mastro et al. 2015 (GIM2)]
 |2003-2006
-|style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+|style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#GIM2|See link]]
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#GIM2|See link]]
@@ Line 3,244: / Line 3,244: @@
 |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2799234/ Burnell et al. 2009 (NCIC-CTG MA.21)]
 |2000-2005
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#NCIC_CTG_MA.21|See link]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#NCIC_CTG_MA.21|See link]]
@@ Line 3,285: / Line 3,285: @@
 | rowspan="2" |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2743943/ Sparano et al. 2008 (ECOG E1199)]
 | rowspan="2" |1999-2002
-| rowspan="2" style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| rowspan="2" style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |1. [[Breast_cancer_-_historical#Paclitaxel monotherapy.2C_q3wk|Paclitaxel, q3wk dosing]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS
@@ Line 3,311: / Line 3,311: @@
 |[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.30421/abstract Watanabe et al. 2017 (NSAS BC-02)]
 |2001-2006
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#NSAS_BC-02|See link]]
 | style="background-color:#91cf60" |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#NSAS_BC-02|See link]]
@@ Line 3,317: / Line 3,317: @@
 |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5584474/ Mavroudis et al. 2017 (HORG CT/01.04)]
 |2001-2013
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#Mavroudis_et_al._2017|See link]]
 | style="background-color:#d9ef8b" |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#Mavroudis_et_al._2017|See link]]
@@ Line 3,341: / Line 3,341: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(09)70307-9 Joensuu et al. 2009 (FinXX)]
 |2004-2007
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#FinXX|See link]]
 | style="background-color:#fee08b" |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#FinXX|See link]]
@@ Line 3,366: / Line 3,366: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.32.7254 Coombes et al. 2011 (DEVA)]
 |1997-2005
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#DEVA|See link]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#DEVA|See link]]
@@ Line 3,372: / Line 3,372: @@
 |[https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa053028 Joensuu et al. 2006 (FinHer)]
 |2000-2003
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Vinorelbine_monotherapy|Vinorelbine]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior RFS <br>(HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.40-0.85)
@@ Line 3,378: / Line 3,378: @@
 |[https://www.ejcancer.com/article/S0959-8049(18)30939-0/fulltext Campone et al. 2018 (UCBG 2-08)]
 |2007-2010
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |Ixabepilone
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS60
@@ Line 3,403: / Line 3,403: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2003.12.005 Bear et al. 2003 (NSABP B-27)]
 |1995-2000
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#NSABP_B-27|See link]]
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#NSABP_B-27|See link]]
@@ Line 3,409: / Line 3,409: @@
 |[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10549-009-0468-0 Polyzos et al. 2009]
 |1995-2004
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#HORG_Polyzos_et_al._2010|See link]]
 | style="background-color:#91cf60" |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#HORG_Polyzos_et_al._2010|See link]]
@@ Line 3,415: / Line 3,415: @@
 | rowspan="2" |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2743943/ Sparano et al. 2008 (ECOG E1199)]
 | rowspan="2" |1999-2002
-| rowspan="2" style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| rowspan="2" style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |1. [[Breast_cancer_-_historical#Paclitaxel_monotherapy.2C_q3wk|Paclitaxel, q3wk dosing]]
 | style="background-color:#91cf60" |Seems to have superior DFS
@@ Line 3,478: / Line 3,478: @@
 |[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10549-014-3202-5 Saloustros et al. 2014 (HORG CT/04.22)]
 |2004-2007
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[#Paclitaxel_monotherapy.2C_dose-dense_.28q2wk.29_2|ddT (Taxol)]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS36
@@ Line 3,484: / Line 3,484: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdw274 Mavroudis et al. 2016 (HORG CT/07.17)]
 |2007-2013
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#HORG_CT.2F07.17|See link]]
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#HORG_CT.2F07.17|See link]]
@@ Line 3,520: / Line 3,520: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1991.9.12.2134 Buzzoni et al. 1991 (Milan trial)]
 |1982-1987
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#Milan_trial|See link]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#Milan_trial|See link]]
@@ Line 3,532: / Line 3,532: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2008.19.2567 Gianni et al. 2009 (ECTO)]
 |1996-2002
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#ECTO|See link]]
 | style="background-color:#fc8d59" |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#ECTO|See link]]
@@ Line 3,570: / Line 3,570: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2003.09.081 Citron et al. 2003 (CALGB 9741)]
 |1997-1999
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#CALGB_9741|See link]]
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#CALGB_9741|See link]]
@@ Line 3,615: / Line 3,615: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2008.19.2567 Gianni et al. 2009 (ECTO)]
 |1996-2002
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#ECTO|See link]]
 | style="background-color:#91cf60" |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#ECTO|See link]]
@@ Line 3,648: / Line 3,648: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2005.03.5196 Basser et al. 2006 (IBCSG 15-95)]
 |1995-2000
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |DI-EC
 | style="background-color:#fc8d59" |Seems to have inferior DFS<sup>1</sup>
@@ Line 3,691: / Line 3,691: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2017.72.3494 Ejlertsen et al. 2017 (DBCG 07-READ)]
 |2008-2012
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |[[#Cyclophosphamide_.26_Docetaxel_.28TC.29|DC]] x 6
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS
@@ Line 3,721: / Line 3,721: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.61.9510 Martín et al. 2015 (GEICAM 2003-10)]
 |2004-2007
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |ET x 4, then [[#Capecitabine_monotherapy|X]] x 4
 | style="background-color:#91cf60" |Seems to have superior IDFS
@@ Line 3,759: / Line 3,759: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdm539 Fountzilas et al. 2007 (HE 10/00)]
 |2000-2005
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |ddE, then ddP
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS36
@@ Line 3,794: / Line 3,794: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2021.07.033 Möbus et al. 2021 (GAIN-2)]
 |2012-2017
-|style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+|style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |dtEC-dtD
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of iDFS
@@ Line 3,840: / Line 3,840: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.24.7643 Möbus et al. 2010 (AGO-iddEPC)]
 |1998-2003
-|style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+|style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |[[#Cyclophosphamide_.26_Epirubicin_.28EC.29_2|EC]], then [[#Paclitaxel_monotherapy.2C_q3wk|Paclitaxel]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior OS<sup>1</sup><br>OS120: 69% vs 59%<br>(HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.60-0.87)
@@ Line 3,846: / Line 3,846: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdx203 Möbus et al. 2017 (GAIN)]
 |2004-2008
-|style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+|style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Dose-dense_Cyclophosphamide_.26_Epibicin_.28ddEC.29|ddEC]], then PwX
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS
@@ Line 3,894: / Line 3,894: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.32.7254 Coombes et al. 2011 (DEVA)]
 |1997-2005
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#DEVA|See link]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#DEVA|See link]]
@@ Line 3,919: / Line 3,919: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1990.8.8.1310 Boccardo et al. 1990 (GROCTA-1)]
 |1983-1987
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#GROCTA-1|See link]]
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#GROCTA-1|See link]]
@@ Line 3,944: / Line 3,944: @@
 |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5584474/ Mavroudis et al. 2017 (HORG CT/01.04)]
 |2001-2013
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#Mavroudis_et_al._2017|See link]]
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#Mavroudis_et_al._2017|See link]]
@@ Line 3,969: / Line 3,969: @@
 |[https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa052084 Poole et al. 2006 (NEAT)]
 |1996-2001
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#BR9601|See link]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#BR9601|See link]]
@@ Line 3,975: / Line 3,975: @@
 |[https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa052084 Poole et al. 2006 (BR9601)]
 |1996-2001
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#BR9601|See link]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#BR9601|See link]]
@@ Line 3,981: / Line 3,981: @@
 |[https://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/315735 Boccardo et al. 2010]
 |1997-2004
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |T-EV
 |style="background-color:#ffffbf"|Did not meet primary endpoint of OS
@@ Line 3,987: / Line 3,987: @@
 |[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10549-010-1257-5 Amadori et al. 2010 (IRST-IBIS-03)]
 |1997-2004
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#IRST-IBIS-03|See link]]
 |style="background-color:#ffffbf"|[[Complex_multipart_regimens#IRST-IBIS-03|See link]]
@@ Line 3,999: / Line 3,999: @@
 |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5489700/ Cameron et al. 2017 (TACT2)]
 |2005-2008
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#TACT2|See link]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#TACT2|See link]]
@@ Line 4,066: / Line 4,066: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdi366 Fountzilas et al. 2005 (HE 10/97)]
 |1997-2000
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#HE_10.2F97|See link]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#HE_10.2F97|See link]]
@@ Line 4,103: / Line 4,103: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.19.01371 Delaloge et al. 2020 (MINDACT)]
 |2007-2011
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |TX (Taxotere)
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS
@@ Line 4,132: / Line 4,132: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.19.01371 Delaloge et al. 2020 (MINDACT)]
 |2007-2011
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |TX (Taxotere)
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS
@@ Line 4,192: / Line 4,192: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2012.46.9841 Martín et al. 2013 (GEICAM 2003-02)]
 |2003-2008
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#GEICAM.2F2003-02|See link]]
 |style="background-color:#91cf60" |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#GEICAM.2F2003-02|See link]]
@@ Line 4,219: / Line 4,219: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdg260 Martin et al. 2003 (GEICAM 8701)]
 |1987-1991
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[#CMF|CMF]]
 | style="background-color:#d9ef8b" |Might have superior DFS
@@ Line 4,225: / Line 4,225: @@
 |[https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa043681 Martin et al. 2005 (BCIRG 001)]
 |1997-1999
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#TAC_.28Taxotere.29_2|TAC]]
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior OS
@@ Line 4,231: / Line 4,231: @@
 |[https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0910320 Martín et al. 2010 (GEICAM 9805)]
 |1999-2003
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#TAC_.28Taxotere.29_2|TAC]]
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior DFS
@@ Line 4,237: / Line 4,237: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2012.46.9841 Martín et al. 2013 (GEICAM 2003-02)]
 |2003-2008
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#FAC_2|FAC]], then [[#Paclitaxel_monotherapy.2C_weekly_2|wP]]
 | style="background-color:#fc8d59" |Seems to have inferior DFS
@@ Line 4,243: / Line 4,243: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.19.01371 Delaloge et al. 2020 (MINDACT)]
 |2007-2011
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |TX (Taxotere)
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS
@@ Line 4,275: / Line 4,275: @@
 |rowspan=2|[https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199405053301801 Wood et al. 1994 (CALGB 8541)]
 |rowspan=2|1985-NR
-|rowspan=2 style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+|rowspan=2 style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |1. [[#FAC_2|FAC]]; 600/30/300 x 4
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior OS
@@ Line 4,302: / Line 4,302: @@
 |[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1097-0142(19840201)53:3%3C384::AID-CNCR2820530303%3E3.0.CO;2-G/abstract Buzdar et al. 1984]
 |1977-1980
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |FAC + BCG
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS
@@ Line 4,356: / Line 4,356: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2005.08.071 Hutchins et al. 2005 (INT-0102)]
 |1989-1993
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[#CMF|CMF]]
 | style="background-color:#91cf60" |Seems to have superior OS
@@ Line 4,362: / Line 4,362: @@
 |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3140679/ Albain et al. 2009 (SWOG-8814)]
 |1989-1995
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#SWOG-8814|See link]]
 | style="background-color:#d9ef8b" |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#SWOG-8814|See link]]
@@ Line 4,396: / Line 4,396: @@
 |rowspan=2|[https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199405053301801 Wood et al. 1994 (CALGB 8541)]
 |rowspan=2|1985-NR
-|rowspan=2 style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+|rowspan=2 style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |1. [[#FAC_2|FAC]]; 600/30/300 x 4
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior OS
@@ Line 4,423: / Line 4,423: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.19.01371 Delaloge et al. 2020 (MINDACT)]
 |2007-2011
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |TX (Taxotere)
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS
@@ Line 4,476: / Line 4,476: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1988.6.4.679 Hurteloup 1988 (FESG)]
 |1982-1984
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[#FAC_2|FAC]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet endpoint of OS50%
@@ Line 4,482: / Line 4,482: @@
 |rowspan=2|[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2003.04.148 Fumoleau et al. 2003 (FASG 01)]
 |rowspan=2|1986-1990
-|rowspan=2 style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+|rowspan=2 style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |1. [[#FEC_2|FEC]]; FEC 50 x 3
 | style="background-color:#d9ef8b" |Might have superior OS
@@ Line 4,491: / Line 4,491: @@
 |[http://www.jle.com/fr/revues/bdc/e-docs/epirubicin_based_chemotherapy_as_adjuvant_treatment_for_poor_prognosis_node_negative_breast_cancer_10_year_follow_up_results__272048/article.phtml Héry et al. 2006 (FASG 03)]
 |1988-1994
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |[[Breast_cancer_-_null_regimens#Observation|Observation]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS120
@@ Line 4,497: / Line 4,497: @@
 |[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02841860510029987 Arriagada et al. 2005]
 |1989-1996
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |[[Breast_cancer_-_null_regimens#Observation|Observation]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior DFS
@@ Line 4,503: / Line 4,503: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2001.19.3.602 Bonneterre 2001 (FASG 05)]
 |1990-1993
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#FEC_2|FEC]]; FEC 100 x 6
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior OS
@@ Line 4,509: / Line 4,509: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdl107 Roché et al. 2006 (FASG 06)]
 |1990-1998
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[Breast_cancer,_ER-positive#Goserelin_.26_Tamoxifen_2|Goserelin & Tamoxifen]] x 3y
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS60
@@ Line 4,533: / Line 4,533: @@
 |[https://www.redjournal.org/article/S0360-3016(05)02813-0/fulltext Rouëssé et al. 2006]
 |1994-1999
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |FNC & RT
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS
@@ Line 4,584: / Line 4,584: @@
 |[https://www.ejcancer.com/article/S0959-8049(17)30822-5/fulltext Kerbrat et al. 2017 (UCBG-0106)]
 |2002-2006
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-de-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-de-esc)
 |[[#FEC_2|FEC]]; FEC 100 x 6
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS60
@@ Line 4,616: / Line 4,616: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2001.19.3.602 Bonneterre 2001 (FASG 05)]
 |1990-1993
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-RT-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-RT-esc)
 |[[#FEC_2|FEC]]; FEC 50 x 6
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior OS
@@ Line 4,622: / Line 4,622: @@
 |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2359910/ Kerbrat et al. 2007 (FASG 09)]
 |1993-1998
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |VE
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS
@@ Line 4,628: / Line 4,628: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2006.07.3916 Roché et al. 2006 (FNCLCC PACS 01)]
 |1997-2000
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#FEC-D|FEC-D]]
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior OS<sup>1</sup>
@@ Line 4,634: / Line 4,634: @@
 |[https://www.ejcancer.com/article/S0959-8049(13)00898-8/fulltext Delbaldo et al. 2013 (Trial B2000)]
 |2000-2002
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#FEC_2|FEC 100]] x 4, then [[#Paclitaxel_monotherapy_2|Taxol]]; q3wk x 4
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS
@@ Line 4,640: / Line 4,640: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdu186 Nitz et al. 2014 (WSG-AGO EC-Doc)]
 |2000-2005
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#EC-D|EC-D]]
 | style="background-color:#fc8d59" |Seems to have inferior OS
@@ Line 4,646: / Line 4,646: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2009.23.0946 Spielmann et al. 2009 (FNCLCC PACS 04)]
 |2001-2004
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Docetaxel_.26_Epirubicin_.28DE.29|ED]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS<sup>2</sup>
@@ Line 4,652: / Line 4,652: @@
 |[https://www.ejcancer.com/article/S0959-8049(17)30822-5/fulltext Kerbrat et al. 2017 (UCBG-0106)]
 |2002-2006
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#FEC_2|FEC]]; FEC 100 x 4
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS60
@@ Line 4,658: / Line 4,658: @@
 |[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12032-013-0457-3 Sakr et al. 2013]
 |2006-2010
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#FEC-D|FEC-D]]
 | style="background-color:#fc8d59" |Seems to have inferior OS
@@ Line 4,664: / Line 4,664: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.19.01371 Delaloge et al. 2020 (MINDACT)]
 |2007-2011
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |TX (Taxotere)
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS
@@ Line 4,690: / Line 4,690: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1996.14.1.35 Coombes et al. 1996]
 |1984-1992
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[#CMF|CMF]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoints of RFS/OS
@@ Line 4,696: / Line 4,696: @@
 |[https://www.ejcancer.com/article/S0959-8049(16)00156-8/fulltext Coombes et al. 2016 (HMFEC)]
 |1992-2000
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#FEC_2|FEC]]; FEC 75
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS
@@ Line 4,742: / Line 4,742: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2001.19.22.4224 van der Hage et al. 2001 (EORTC 10902)]
 |1991-1999
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#FEC|FEC]]; neoadjuvant
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of OS
@@ Line 4,774: / Line 4,774: @@
 |[https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/97/23/1724/2521486 Venturini et al. 2005 (MIG-1)]
 |1992-1997
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |Dose-dense FEC
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of OS
@@ Line 4,780: / Line 4,780: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdp602 Sirohi et al. 2010 (TRAFIC)]
 |1995-2002
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |ECisF
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of RFS
@@ Line 4,786: / Line 4,786: @@
 |[http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10549-015-3655-1 del Mastro et al. 2016 (GONO-MIG5)]
 |1996-2001
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Epirubicin_.26_Paclitaxel_.28EP.29_2|EP]] x 4
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of OS
@@ Line 4,858: / Line 4,858: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(09)70307-9 Joensuu et al. 2009 (FinXX)]
 |2004-2007
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#FinXX|See link]]
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#FinXX|See link]]
@@ Line 4,883: / Line 4,883: @@
 |[http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/100/11/805.long Martín et al. 2008 (GEICAM 9906)]
 |1999-2002
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#GEICAM_9906|See link]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#GEICAM_9906|See link]]
@@ Line 4,889: / Line 4,889: @@
 |[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)62048-1/fulltext Del Mastro et al. 2015 (GIM2)]
 |2003-2006
-|style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+|style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#GIM2|See link]]
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#GIM2|See link]]
@@ Line 4,917: / Line 4,917: @@
 |[http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/100/11/805.long Martín et al. 2008 (GEICAM 9906)]
 |1999-2002
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#FEC_2|FEC]] x 4, then [[#Paclitaxel_monotherapy.2C_weekly_2|wP]]
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior DFS
@@ Line 4,941: / Line 4,941: @@
 |[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10549-009-0468-0 Polyzos et al. 2009]
 |1995-2004
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Docetaxel_monotherapy_2|D]], then [[#Cyclophosphamide_.26_Epirubicin_.28EC.29_2|EC]]
 | style="background-color:#fc8d59" |Seems to have inferior DFS
@@ Line 4,965: / Line 4,965: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2001.19.19.3929 Paradiso et al. 2001]
 |1989-1994
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |[[Breast_cancer_-_null_regimens#Observation|Observation]]
 | style="background-color:#91cf60" |Seems to have superior DFS
@@ Line 4,987: / Line 4,987: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.19.01371 Delaloge et al. 2020 (MINDACT)]
 |2007-2011
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |TX (Taxotere)
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS
@@ Line 5,011: / Line 5,011: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.1998.16.8.2651 Levine et al. 1998 (NCIC-CTG MA.5)]
 |1989-1993
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-RT-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-RT-switch-ic)
 |[[#CMF|CMF]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior RFS
@@ Line 5,017: / Line 5,017: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdi166 Coombes et al. 2005 (ICCG HDT trial)]
 |1993-2001
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#FEC_2|FEC]] x 3, then HDT
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoints of RFS/EFS/OS
@@ Line 5,023: / Line 5,023: @@
 |rowspan=2|[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2799234/ Burnell et al. 2009 (NCIC-CTG MA.21)]
 |rowspan = 2|2000-2005
-|rowspan = 2 style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+|rowspan = 2 style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |1. [[#Cyclophosphamide_.26_Doxorubicin_.28AC.29_2|AC]] x 4, then [[Breast_cancer_-_historical#Paclitaxel_monotherapy.2C_q3wk|T (Taxol)]]; q3wk x 4
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior RFS
@@ Line 5,032: / Line 5,032: @@
 |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4984804/ Janni et al. 2016 (ADEBAR)]
 |2001-2005
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Cyclophosphamide_.26_Epirubicin_.28EC.29_2|EC]] x 3, then [[#Docetaxel_monotherapy|Docetaxel]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of TTP
@@ Line 5,038: / Line 5,038: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.19.01371 Delaloge et al. 2020 (MINDACT)]
 |2007-2011
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |TX (Taxotere)
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS
@@ Line 5,062: / Line 5,062: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1996.14.1.35 Coombes et al. 1996]
 |1984-1992
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[#CMF|CMF]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoints of RFS/OS
@@ Line 5,142: / Line 5,142: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdw274 Mavroudis et al. 2016 (HORG CT/07.17)]
 |2007-2013
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#HORG_CT.2F07.17|See link]]
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#HORG_CT.2F07.17|See link]]
@@ Line 5,172: / Line 5,172: @@
 |[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)62048-1/fulltext Del Mastro et al. 2015 (GIM2)]
 |2003-2006
-|style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+|style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#GIM2|See link]]
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#GIM2|See link]]
@@ Line 5,212: / Line 5,212: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2006.07.3916 Roché et al. 2006 (FNCLCC PACS 01)]
 |1997-2000
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#FNCLCC_PACS_01|See link]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior OS<sup>1</sup> <br>(HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.62-0.92)
@@ Line 5,218: / Line 5,218: @@
 |[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc7583247/ de Gregorio et al. 2020 (SUCCESS-A)]
 |2005-2007
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |FEC-DG
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS
@@ Line 5,224: / Line 5,224: @@
 |[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12032-013-0457-3 Sakr et al. 2013]
 |2006-2010
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[#FEC_2|FEC]]; FEC 100 x 6
 | style="background-color:#91cf60" |Seems to have superior OS
@@ Line 5,230: / Line 5,230: @@
 |[https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2579866 Foukakis et al. 2016 (PANTHER)]
 |2007-2011
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |Dose-dense tailored chemotherapy
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of RFS
@@ Line 5,236: / Line 5,236: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.19.01371 Delaloge et al. 2020 (MINDACT)]
 |2007-2011
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |TX (Taxotere)
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS
@@ Line 5,285: / Line 5,285: @@
 | rowspan="2" |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2743943/ Sparano et al. 2008 (ECOG E1199)]
 | rowspan="2" |1999-2002
-| rowspan="2" style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| rowspan="2" style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |1. [[Breast_cancer_-_historical#Paclitaxel_monotherapy.2C_q3wk|Paclitaxel]]; q3wk
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior OS
@@ Line 5,294: / Line 5,294: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2011.36.2079 Kelly et al. 2012 (MDACC ID01-580)]
 |2002-2008
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |XT
 |style="background-color:#ffffbf"|Did not meet primary endpoint of RFS
@@ Line 5,300: / Line 5,300: @@
 | rowspan="3" |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3494835/ Shulman et al. 2012 (CALGB 40101)]
 | rowspan="3" |2002-2008
-| rowspan="3" style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-de-esc)
+| rowspan="3" style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-de-esc)
 |1. [[#Cyclophosphamide_.26_Doxorubicin_.28AC.29_2|AC]] x 4
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of RFS
@@ Line 5,312: / Line 5,312: @@
 |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4268253/ Budd et al. 2014 (SWOG S0221)]
 |2003-2010
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Paclitaxel monotherapy.2C_dose-dense_.28q2wk.29_2|ddT]] x 6
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS
@@ Line 5,318: / Line 5,318: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2018.79.2028 Miller et al. 2018 (ECOG E5103)]
 |2007-2011
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#ECOG_E5103|See link]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#ECOG_E5103|See link]]
@@ Line 5,347: / Line 5,347: @@
 |[http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/100/11/805.long Martín et al. 2008 (GEICAM 9906)]
 |1999-2002
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#GEICAM_9906|See link]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#GEICAM_9906|See link]]
@@ Line 5,353: / Line 5,353: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2012.46.9841 Martín et al. 2013 (GEICAM 2003-02)]
 |2003-2008
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#GEICAM.2F2003-02|See link]]
 |style="background-color:#91cf60" |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#GEICAM.2F2003-02|See link]]
@@ Line 5,397: / Line 5,397: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2003.09.081 Citron et al. 2003 (CALGB 9741)]
 |1997-1999
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#CALGB_9741|See link]]
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#CALGB_9741|See link]]
@@ Line 5,403: / Line 5,403: @@
 | rowspan="3" |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3494835/ Shulman et al. 2012 (CALGB 40101)]
 | rowspan="3" |2002-2008
-| rowspan="3" style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-de-esc)
+| rowspan="3" style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-de-esc)
 |1. [[#Dose-dense_Cyclophosphamide_.26_Doxorubicin_.28ddAC.29_2|ddAC]] x 4
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of RFS
@@ Line 5,421: / Line 5,421: @@
 |[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)62048-1/fulltext Del Mastro et al. 2015 (GIM2)]
 |2003-2006
-|style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+|style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#GIM2|See link]]
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#GIM2|See link]]
@@ Line 5,427: / Line 5,427: @@
 |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3757290/ Swain et al. 2013 (NSABP B-38)]
 |2004-2007
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#NSABP_B-38|See link]]
 |[[Complex_multipart_regimens#NSABP_B-38|See link]]
@@ Line 5,473: / Line 5,473: @@
 |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4268253/ Budd et al. 2014 (SWOG S0221)]
 |2003-2010
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[#Paclitaxel_monotherapy.2C_weekly_2|Paclitaxel]]; weekly
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS
@@ Line 5,540: / Line 5,540: @@
 |rowspan=2|[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2935316/ Swain et al. 2010 (NSABP B-30)]
 |rowspan=2|1999-2004
-|rowspan=2 style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+|rowspan=2 style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |1. [[#AC-D_2|AC-D]]
 | style="background-color:#fee08b" |Might have inferior OS
@@ Line 5,568: / Line 5,568: @@
 |[https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa043681 Martin et al. 2005 (BCIRG 001)]
 |1997-1999
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-RT-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-RT-switch-ic)
 |[[#FAC_2|FAC]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior OS
@@ Line 5,574: / Line 5,574: @@
 |[https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0910320 Martín et al. 2010 (GEICAM 9805)]
 |1999-2003
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[#FAC_2|FAC]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior DFS <br>(HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.49-0.93)
@@ Line 5,580: / Line 5,580: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2010.28.5437 Eiermann et al. 2011 (BCIRG-005)]
 |2000-2003
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#AC-D_2|AC-D]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS60
@@ Line 5,586: / Line 5,586: @@
 | rowspan="2" |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3757290/ Swain et al. 2013 (NSABP B-38)]
 | rowspan="2" |2004-2007
-| rowspan="2" style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| rowspan="2" style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |1. [[#Dose-dense_Cyclophosphamide_.26_Doxorubicin_.28ddAC.29_2|ddAC]], then [[#Paclitaxel monotherapy.2C_dose-dense_.28q2wk.29_2|ddP]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of DFS
@@ Line 5,595: / Line 5,595: @@
 |[https://www.ejcancer.com/article/S0959-8049(18)30982-1/fulltext van Rossum et al. 2018 (MATADOR)]
 |2004-2012
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[#Dose-dense_Cyclophosphamide_.26_Doxorubicin_.28ddAC.29_2|ddAC]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet secondary endpoints of RFS/OS
@@ Line 5,601: / Line 5,601: @@
 |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5549453/ Blum et al. 2017 (USOR 06-090)]
 |2007-2009
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Cyclophosphamide_.26_Docetaxel_.28TC.29|TC]]
 | style="background-color:#91cf60" |Seems to have superior IDFS
@@ Line 5,607: / Line 5,607: @@
 |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5549453/ Blum et al. 2017 (NSABP-46-I/USOR 07132)]
 |2009-2012
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Cyclophosphamide_.26_Docetaxel_.28TC.29|TC]]
 | style="background-color:#91cf60" |Seems to have superior IDFS
@@ Line 5,613: / Line 5,613: @@
 |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5549453/ Blum et al. 2017 (NSABP B-49)]
 |2012-2013
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Cyclophosphamide_.26_Docetaxel_.28TC.29|TC]]
 | style="background-color:#91cf60" |Seems to have superior IDFS
@@ Line 5,665: / Line 5,665: @@
 |[https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa053028 Joensuu et al. 2006 (FinHer)]
 |2000-2003
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[#Docetaxel_monotherapy_2|Docetaxel]]
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior DDFS
@@ Line 5,726: / Line 5,726: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdn781 Katsumata et al. 2009 (JCOG9802)]
 |1999-2003
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |1. AC/D<br> 2. [[#Docetaxel_monotherapy_3|Docetaxel]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of TTF
@@ Line 5,753: / Line 5,753: @@
 |[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/1097-0142(19820301)49:5%3C835::AID-CNCR2820490502%3E3.0.CO;2-Z Tranum et al. 1982 (SWOG-7405B)]
 |1974-1977
-|style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-de-esc)
+|style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-de-esc)
 |1. [[#FAC_3|FAC]]<br> 2. [[#Doxorubicin_monotherapy_2|A]], then [[Breast_cancer_-_historical#CMFVP_2|CMFVP]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of ORR
@@ Line 5,795: / Line 5,795: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2002.11.005 Biganzoli et al. 2002 (EORTC 10961)]
 |1996-1999
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Doxorubicin_.26_Paclitaxel_.28AT.29_2|AT (Taxol)]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of PFS
@@ Line 5,801: / Line 5,801: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2003.04.040 Nabholtz et al. 2003 (TAX 306)]
 |NR
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Docetaxel_.26_Doxorubicin_.28AT.29|AT (Taxotere)]]
 | style="background-color:#fc8d59" |Seems to have inferior TTP
@@ Line 5,822: / Line 5,822: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.28.0982 Robert et al. 2011 (RIBBON-1)]
 |2005-2007
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Cyclophosphamide_.26_Doxorubicin_.28AC.29_.26_Bevacizumab_2|AC & Bevacizumab]]
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior PFS
@@ Line 5,859: / Line 5,859: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.28.0982 Robert et al. 2011 (RIBBON-1)]
 |2005-2007
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |[[#Cyclophosphamide_.26_Doxorubicin_.28AC.29_3|AC]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior PFS <br>(HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.52-0.80)
@@ Line 5,894: / Line 5,894: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2003.08.013 Sledge et al. 2003 (ECOG E1193)]
 |1993-1995
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |1. [[ #Doxorubicin_monotherapy_2|Doxorubicin]]<br> 2. [[#Paclitaxel_monotherapy.2C_q3wk|Paclitaxel]]; q3wk
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior TTF
@@ Line 5,916: / Line 5,916: @@
 |[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10549-007-9651-3 Cassier et al. 2007 (ERASME 3)]
 |2000-2004
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Docetaxel_.26_Doxorubicin_.28AT.29|AT (Taxotere)]]
 | style="background-color:#d9ef8b" |Might have superior OS
@@ Line 5,939: / Line 5,939: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2001.19.6.1707 Jassem et al. 2001]
 |1996-1998
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-de-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-de-esc)
 |[[#FAC_3|FAC]]
 | style="background-color:#91cf60" |Seems to have superior OS
@@ Line 5,960: / Line 5,960: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2002.11.005 Biganzoli et al. 2002 (EORTC 10961)]
 |1996-1999
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[#Cyclophosphamide_.26_Doxorubicin_.28AC.29_3|AC]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of PFS
@@ Line 5,966: / Line 5,966: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.06.072 Schmid et al. 2005]
 |1998-2002
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |Tandem auto HSCT
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of CR rate
@@ Line 6,020: / Line 6,020: @@
 |[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10549-007-9651-3 Cassier et al. 2007 (ERASME 3)]
 |2000-2004
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Doxorubicin_.26_Paclitaxel_.28AT.29_2|AT (Taxol)]]
 | style="background-color:#fee08b" |Might have inferior OS
@@ Line 6,044: / Line 6,044: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.06.236 Bontenbal et al. 2005]
 |1997-2002
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-de-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-de-esc)
 |[[#FAC_3|FAC]]
 | style="background-color:#91cf60" |Seems to have superior OS
@@ Line 6,051: / Line 6,051: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2004.08.125 Alba et al. 2004 (GEICAM-9903)]
 |1999-2001
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Doxorubicin_monotherapy_2|A]], then [[#Docetaxel_monotherapy_3|T (Taxotere)]]
 |
@@ Line 6,074: / Line 6,074: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2003.04.040 Nabholtz et al. 2003 (TAX 306)]
 |NR
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[#Cyclophosphamide_.26_Doxorubicin_.28AC.29_3|AC]]
 | style="background-color:#91cf60" |Seems to have superior TTP
@@ Line 6,081: / Line 6,081: @@
 |[https://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/320625 Stemmler et al. 2010 (D4)]
 |2001-2008
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Docetaxel_.26_Doxorubicin_.28AT.29|AT (Taxotere)]]; weekly docetaxel
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet secondary endpoint of TTP
@@ Line 6,115: / Line 6,115: @@
 | rowspan="2" |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2010.33.9101 Stockler et al. 2011 (ANZ 0001)]
 |rowspan=2|2001-2005
-| rowspan="2" style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-de-esc)
+| rowspan="2" style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-de-esc)
 |1. [[#CMF_2|CMF]]
 | style="background-color:#91cf60" |Seems to have superior OS
@@ Line 6,138: / Line 6,138: @@
 |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4433520/ Smorenburg et al. 2014 (OMEGA)]
 |2007-2011
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[#Doxorubicin_pegylated_liposomal_monotherapy|PLD]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of PFS
@@ Line 6,164: / Line 6,164: @@
 | rowspan="2" |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2010.33.9101 Stockler et al. 2011 (ANZ 0001)]
 |rowspan=2|2001-2005
-| rowspan="2" style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-de-esc)
+| rowspan="2" style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-de-esc)
 |1. [[#CMF_2|CMF]]
 | style="background-color:#91cf60" |Seems to have superior OS
@@ Line 6,173: / Line 6,173: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.28.0982 Robert et al. 2011 (RIBBON-1)]
 |2005-2007
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Capecitabine_.26_Bevacizumab|Capecitabine & Bevacizumab]]
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior PFS
@@ Line 6,199: / Line 6,199: @@
 |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5222915/ Harbeck et al. 2016 (PELICAN)]
 |2006-2010
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[#Doxorubicin_pegylated_liposomal_monotherapy|Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Inconclusive whether non-inferior TTP
@@ Line 6,236: / Line 6,236: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.28.0982 Robert et al. 2011 (RIBBON-1)]
 |2005-2007
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |[[#Capecitabine_monotherapy_2|Capecitabine]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior PFS <br>(HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56-0.84)
@@ Line 6,242: / Line 6,242: @@
 |[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(12)70566-1/fulltext Lang et al. 2013 (TURANDOT)]
 |2008-2010
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[#Paclitaxel_.26_Bevacizumab|Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab]]
 | style="background-color:#eeee01" |Non-inferior OS<sup>1</sup>
@@ Line 6,248: / Line 6,248: @@
 |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4788680/ Welt et al. 2016 (CARIN)]
 |2009-2012
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |Capecitabine, Vinorelbine, Bevacizumab
 | style="background-color:#fee08b" |Might have inferior PFS
@@ Line 6,335: / Line 6,335: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1988.6.9.1377 Tannock et al. 1988]
 |1981-1986
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#CMF_2|CMF]]; lower-dose
 | style="background-color:#d9ef8b" |Might have superior OS
@@ Line 6,363: / Line 6,363: @@
 |rowspan=2|[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1987.5.10.1523 Aisner et al. 1987]
 |rowspan=2|1976-1980
-|rowspan=2 style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+|rowspan=2 style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |1. [[#FAC_3|CAF]]
 | style="background-color:#fc8d59" |Seems to have inferior OS
@@ Line 6,388: / Line 6,388: @@
 |[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/1097-0142(197611)38:5%3C1882::AID-CNCR2820380503%3E3.0.CO;2-H Canellos et al. 1976]
 |NR
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |[[Breast_cancer_-_historical#Melphalan_monotherapy_2|Melphalan]]
 | style="background-color:#91cf60" |Seems to have superior OS
@@ Line 6,417: / Line 6,417: @@
 |[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/1097-0142(197611)38:5%3C1882::AID-CNCR2820380503%3E3.0.CO;2-H Canellos et al. 1976]
 |NR
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |[[Breast_cancer_-_historical#Melphalan_monotherapy_2|Melphalan]]
 | style="background-color:#91cf60" |Seems to have superior OS
@@ Line 6,423: / Line 6,423: @@
 |[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1097-0142(197805)41:5%3C1649::AID-CNCR2820410501%3E3.0.CO;2-J/abstract Bull et al. 1978]
 |NR
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#FAC_3|CAF]]
 | style="background-color:#fee08b" |Might have inferior ORR
@@ Line 6,441: / Line 6,441: @@
 |[https://www.ejcancer.com/article/0277-5379(91)90259-G/fulltext Engelsman et al. 1991 (EORTC 10808)]
 |1981-1984
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#CMF_2|CMF]]; 600/40/600 (IV)
 | style="background-color:#91cf60" |Seems to have superior OS
@@ Line 6,465: / Line 6,465: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2001.19.4.943 Ackland et al. 2001 (HEPI 013)]
 |1990-1992
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#FEC_3|CEF]]
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior TTP
@@ Line 6,471: / Line 6,471: @@
 |[https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM200004133421501 Stadtmauer et al. 2000]
 |1990-1997
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#CMF_2|CMF]] x 4-6, then [[Breast_cancer_-_historical#CTCb.2C_then_auto_HSCT_2|HDT]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of OS
@@ Line 6,477: / Line 6,477: @@
 |[https://insights.ovid.com/pubmed?pmid=16096436 von Minckwitz et al. 2005]
 |1996-2001
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |BMF
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior TTP
@@ Line 6,483: / Line 6,483: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2010.33.9101 Stockler et al. 2011 (ANZ 0001)]
 |2001-2005
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |1. [[#Capecitabine_monotherapy_2|Capecitabine]]; continuous<br> 2. [[#Capecitabine_monotherapy_2|Capecitabine]]; intermittent
 | style="background-color:#fc8d59" |Seems to have inferior OS
@@ Line 6,506: / Line 6,506: @@
 |[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/1097-0142(197611)38:5%3C1882::AID-CNCR2820380503%3E3.0.CO;2-H Canellos et al. 1976]
 |NR
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |[[Breast_cancer_-_historical#Melphalan_monotherapy_2|Melphalan]]
 | style="background-color:#91cf60" |Seems to have superior OS
@@ Line 6,599: / Line 6,599: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdp585 Blohmer et al. 2010]
 |2000-2003
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[#Cyclophosphamide_.26_Epirubicin_.28EC.29_3|EC]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of ORR
@@ Line 6,620: / Line 6,620: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdp498 Mavroudis et al. 2009 (HORG CT/02.09)]
 |2002-2007
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Capecitabine_.26_Docetaxel_.28TX.29_2|TX]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of TTP
@@ Line 6,654: / Line 6,654: @@
 |[https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/320640 Stemmler et al. 2011 (D2)]
 |2001-2008
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[#Docetaxel_monotherapy_3|Docetaxel]]; q3wk
 | style="background-color:#fc8d59" |Seems to have inferior ORR
@@ Line 6,676: / Line 6,676: @@
 |[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/cncr.23321 Rivera et al. 2008]
 |2001-2004
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[#Docetaxel_monotherapy_3|Docetaxel]]; q3wk
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of ORR
@@ Line 6,716: / Line 6,716: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdn781 Katsumata et al. 2009 (JCOG9802)]
 |1999-2003
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-de-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-de-esc)
 |1. [[#Cyclophosphamide_.26_Doxorubicin_.28AC.29_3|AC]]<br> 2. AC/D
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of TTF
@@ Line 6,723: / Line 6,723: @@
 |[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(15)00411-8/fulltext Takashima et al. 2015 (SELECT BC)]
 |2006-2010
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#S-1_monotherapy|S-1]]
 | style="background-color:#eeee01" |Seems to have non-inferior OS
@@ Line 6,745: / Line 6,745: @@
 |[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(15)00411-8/fulltext Takashima et al. 2015 (SELECT BC)]
 |2006-2010
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#S-1_monotherapy|S-1]]
 | style="background-color:#eeee01" |Seems to have non-inferior OS
@@ Line 6,767: / Line 6,767: @@
 |[https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/320640 Stemmler et al. 2011 (D2)]
 |2001-2008
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Docetaxel_monotherapy_3|Docetaxel]]; weekly
 | style="background-color:#91cf60" |Seems to have superior ORR
@@ Line 6,774: / Line 6,774: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2008.20.5013 Sparano et al. 2009 (DOXIL-BCA-3001)]
 |2004-2006
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |Docetaxel & PLD
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior TTP
@@ Line 6,781: / Line 6,781: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.28.0982 Robert et al. 2011 (RIBBON-1)]
 |2005-2007
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Docetaxel_.26_Bevacizumab_2|Docetaxel & Bevacizumab]]
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior PFS
@@ Line 6,788: / Line 6,788: @@
 |[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(15)00411-8/fulltext Takashima et al. 2015 (SELECT BC)]
 |2006-2010
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#S-1_monotherapy|S-1]]
 | style="background-color:#eeee01" |Seems to have non-inferior OS
@@ Line 6,795: / Line 6,795: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2014.57.1513 Mackey et al. 2014 (ROSE/TRIO-12)]
 |2008-2011
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |Docetaxel & Ramucirumab
 | style="background-color:#fee08b" |Might have inferior PFS
@@ Line 6,817: / Line 6,817: @@
 |[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(15)00411-8/fulltext Takashima et al. 2015 (SELECT BC)]
 |2006-2010
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#S-1_monotherapy|S-1]]
 | style="background-color:#eeee01" |Seems to have non-inferior OS
@@ Line 6,838: / Line 6,838: @@
 |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2361414/ Pacilio et al. 2006]
 |2000-2003
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |Docetaxel & Epirubicin
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of ORR
@@ Line 6,858: / Line 6,858: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2007.11.8851 Crump et al. 2007 (NCIC-CTG MA.16)]
 |1997-2000
-|style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+|style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |1. FAC x 4, then HDCT with auto HSCT<br> 2. FEC x 4, then HDCT with auto HSCT<br> 3. Paclitaxel x 4, , then HDCT with auto HSCT<br> 4. Docetaxel x 4, then HDCT with auto HSCT
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of OS
@@ Line 6,878: / Line 6,878: @@
 |rowspan=2|[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2008.21.6457 Miles et al. 2010 (AVADO)]
 |rowspan=2|2006-2007
-|rowspan=2 style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+|rowspan=2 style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |1. [[#Docetaxel_.26_Bevacizumab_2|Docetaxel & Bevacizumab]]; 100/7.5
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of PFS
@@ Line 6,909: / Line 6,909: @@
 |[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/cncr.23321 Rivera et al. 2008]
 |2001-2004
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Docetaxel_monotherapy_3|Docetaxel]]; weekly
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of ORR
@@ Line 6,916: / Line 6,916: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.33.9507 Nielsen et al. 2011]
 |2001-2005
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Docetaxel_.26_Gemcitabine|Docetaxel & Gemcitabine]]
 | style="background-color:#fee08b" |Might have inferior TTP
@@ Line 6,923: / Line 6,923: @@
 |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2860103/ Joensuu et al. 2009 (B9E-MC-S241)]
 |2002-2006
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |D/G
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of TTF
@@ Line 6,937: / Line 6,937: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.28.0982 Robert et al. 2011 (RIBBON-1)]
 |2005-2007
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Docetaxel_.26_Bevacizumab_2|Docetaxel & Bevacizumab]]
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior PFS
@@ Line 6,944: / Line 6,944: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2011.35.7376 Bergh et al. 2012 (SUN 1064)]
 |2007-2009
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |Docetaxel & Sunitinib
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of PFS
@@ Line 6,994: / Line 6,994: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.28.0982 Robert et al. 2011 (RIBBON-1)]
 |2005-2007
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |[[#Docetaxel_monotherapy_3|Docetaxel]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior PFS <br>(HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.52-0.80)
@@ Line 7,000: / Line 7,000: @@
 |[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10549-014-3217-y Lück et al. 2014 (TABEA)]
 |2009-2012
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |TBX
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of PFS
@@ Line 7,006: / Line 7,006: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdw077 Trédan et al. 2016 (GINECO-BR107)]
 |2010-2013
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Docetaxel_.26_Bevacizumab_2|Docetaxel & Bevacizumab]], then Exemestane & Bevacizumab
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of PFS
@@ Line 7,028: / Line 7,028: @@
 |rowspan=2|[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2008.21.6457 Miles et al. 2010 (AVADO)]
 |rowspan=2|2006-2007
-|rowspan=2 style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+|rowspan=2 style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |1. [[#Docetaxel_monotherapy_3|Docetaxel]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior PFS
@@ Line 7,055: / Line 7,055: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.28.0982 Robert et al. 2011 (RIBBON-1)]
 |2005-2007
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |[[#Docetaxel_monotherapy_3|Docetaxel]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior PFS <br>(HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.52-0.80)
@@ Line 7,090: / Line 7,090: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.33.9507 Nielsen et al. 2011]
 |2001-2005
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |[[#Docetaxel_monotherapy_3|Docetaxel]]
 | style="background-color:#d9ef8b" |Might have superior TTP
@@ Line 7,096: / Line 7,096: @@
 |rowspan=2|[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10549-008-0047-9 Fountzilas et al. 2008]
 |rowspan=2|2002-2006
-|rowspan=2 style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+|rowspan=2 style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |1. Carboplatin & Paclitaxel
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of OS
@@ Line 7,105: / Line 7,105: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdq578 Seidman et al. 2010 (B9E-MC-S273)]
 |2002-2008
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Capecitabine_.26_Docetaxel_.28TX.29_2|TX]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of TTP
@@ Line 7,111: / Line 7,111: @@
 |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3621657/ Del Mastro et al. 2013 (B9E-IT-S376)]
 |2005-2010
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |1. [[#Docetaxel_.26_Gemcitabine|GD]]; weekly<br> 2. [[#Gemcitabine_.26_Paclitaxel|GT]]; q3wk<br> 3. [[#Gemcitabine_.26_Paclitaxel|GT]]; weekly
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of TTP
@@ Line 7,147: / Line 7,147: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-5379(86)90075-1 Gundersen et al. 1986]
 |1982-1983
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-de-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-de-esc)
 |[[Breast_cancer_-_historical#CAV|VAC]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet endpoint of OS
@@ Line 7,153: / Line 7,153: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-5379(90)90255-r Gundersen et al. 1990]
 |1984-1986
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Epirubicin_monotherapy_2|Epirubicin]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet endpoints of ORR/OS
@@ Line 7,179: / Line 7,179: @@
 |[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/1097-0142(197402)33:2%3C519::AID-CNCR2820330229%3E3.0.CO;2-X Gottlieb et al. 1974 (SWG02)]
 |1972
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |1. Lomustine<br> 2. Semustine
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior OS
@@ Line 7,185: / Line 7,185: @@
 |[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/1097-0142(197607)38:1%3C13::AID-CNCR2820380104%3E3.0.CO;2-5 Hoogstraten et al. 1976]
 |1972-1974
-|style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+|style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[Breast_cancer_-_historical_#CMFVP_2|CMFVP]]
 | style="background-color:#fc8d59" |Seems to have inferior ORR
@@ Line 7,191: / Line 7,191: @@
 |[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/mpo.2950160505 Vaughn et al. 1988 (SWOG S8020)]
 |1980-1982
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |Doxorubicin & Etoposide
 | style="background-color:#fc8d59" |Seems to have inferior TTP
@@ Line 7,197: / Line 7,197: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1991.9.12.2148 Perez et al. 1991]
 |1985-1988
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Epirubicin_monotherapy_2|Epirubicin]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet endpoints of ORR/OS
@@ Line 7,203: / Line 7,203: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2000.18.12.2385 Norris et al. 2000 (NCIC-CTG MA.8)]
 |1992-1995
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |Doxorubicin & Vinorelbine
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of OS
@@ Line 7,209: / Line 7,209: @@
 |rowspan=2|[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2003.08.013 Sledge et al. 2003 (ECOG E1193)]
 |rowspan=2|1993-1995
-|rowspan=2 style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+|rowspan=2 style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |1. [[#Doxorubicin_.26_Paclitaxel_.28AT.29_2|AT (Taxol)]]
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior TTF
@@ Line 7,218: / Line 7,218: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdh097 O'Brien et al. 2004]
 |1998-2000
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Doxorubicin_pegylated_liposomal_monotherapy|Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin]]
 | style="background-color:#eeee01" |Seems to have non-inferior PFS
@@ Line 7,239: / Line 7,239: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2000.18.4.724 Paridaens et al. 2000 (EORTC 10923)]
 |1993-1996
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Paclitaxel_monotherapy.2C_q3wk|Paclitaxel]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior PFS
@@ Line 7,278: / Line 7,278: @@
 |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4433520/ Smorenburg et al. 2014 (OMEGA)]
 |2007-2011
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[#Capecitabine_monotherapy_2|Capecitabine]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of PFS
@@ Line 7,298: / Line 7,298: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdh097 O'Brien et al. 2004]
 |1998-2000
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[ #Doxorubicin_monotherapy_2|Doxorubicin]]
 | style="background-color:#eeee01" |Seems to have non-inferior PFS
@@ Line 7,304: / Line 7,304: @@
 |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5222915/ Harbeck et al. 2016 (PELICAN)]
 |2006-2010
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[#Capecitabine_monotherapy_2|Capecitabine]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Inconclusive whether non-inferior TTP
@@ Line 7,337: / Line 7,337: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdh393 Chan et al. 2004]
 |1996-1997
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Cyclophosphamide_.26_NPLD_.28MC.29|MC]]
 | style="background-color:#fc8d59" |Seems to have inferior TTP
@@ Line 7,343: / Line 7,343: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2005.01.1817 Langley et al. 2005 (UKNCRI AB01)]
 |1996-1999
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Epirubicin_.26_Paclitaxel_.28EP.29_3|EP]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of PFS
@@ Line 7,364: / Line 7,364: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdp585 Blohmer et al. 2010]
 |2000-2003
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Docetaxel_.26_Epirubicin_.28DE.29_2|ED]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of ORR
@@ Line 7,385: / Line 7,385: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.28.0982 Robert et al. 2011 (RIBBON-1)]
 |2005-2007
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Cyclophosphamide_.26_Epirubicin_.28EC.29_.26_Bevacizumab|EC & Bevacizumab]]
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior PFS
@@ Line 7,419: / Line 7,419: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.28.0982 Robert et al. 2011 (RIBBON-1)]
 |2005-2007
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |[[#Cyclophosphamide_.26_Epirubicin_.28EC.29_3|EC]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior PFS <br>(HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.52-0.80)
@@ Line 7,455: / Line 7,455: @@
 |[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10549-013-2589-8 Lück et al. 2013]
 |2002-2005
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |XP
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Inconclusive whether non-inferior PFS
@@ Line 7,476: / Line 7,476: @@
 |[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10549-011-1880-9 Hatschek et al. 2011 (TEX trial)]
 |2002-2007
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |TEX
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of PFS
@@ Line 7,498: / Line 7,498: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2005.01.1817 Langley et al. 2005 (UKNCRI AB01)]
 |1996-1999
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[#Cyclophosphamide_.26_Epirubicin_.28EC.29_3|EC]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of PFS
@@ Line 7,519: / Line 7,519: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdh395 Fountzilas et al. 2004]
 |1999-2002
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |Carboplatin & Paclitaxel (CP)
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of OS
@@ Line 7,540: / Line 7,540: @@
 |[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/cncr.20400 Conte et al. 2004]
 |1996-2001
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Epirubicin_monotherapy_2|E]], then [[#Paclitaxel_monotherapy.2C_q3wk|P]]
 | style="background-color:#eeee01" |Seems to have non-inferior ORR
@@ Line 7,574: / Line 7,574: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdi181 Feher et al. 2005]
 |1996-1999
-|style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+|style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |Gemcitabine
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior OS
@@ Line 7,594: / Line 7,594: @@
 | rowspan="3" |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.1996.14.4.1146 Bastholt et al. 1996]
 |rowspan=3|1987-1991
-| rowspan="3" style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-de-esc)
+| rowspan="3" style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-de-esc)
 |1. [[#Epirubicin_monotherapy_2|Epirubicin]]; 60 mg/m<sup>2</sup>
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of TTP
@@ Line 7,620: / Line 7,620: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-5379(90)90255-r Gundersen et al. 1990]
 |1984-1986
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[#Doxorubicin_monotherapy_2|Doxorubicin]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet endpoints of ORR/OS
@@ Line 7,640: / Line 7,640: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.annonc.a057748 Nielsen et al. 1990]
 |1983-1986
-|style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+|style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |Epirubicin & Vindesine
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of ORR
@@ Line 7,646: / Line 7,646: @@
 | [https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.1996.14.4.1146 Bastholt et al. 1996]
 |1987-1991
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-de-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-de-esc)
 |1. [[#Epirubicin_monotherapy_2|Epirubicin]]; 40 mg/m<sup>2</sup><br> 2. [[#Epirubicin_monotherapy_2|Epirubicin]]; 90 mg/m<sup>2</sup><br> 3. [[#Epirubicin_monotherapy_2|Epirubicin]]; 135 mg/m<sup>2</sup>
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of TTP
@@ Line 7,667: / Line 7,667: @@
 |[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs002800000178 Nielsen et al. 2000]
 |1987-1990
-|style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+|style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |Cisplatin & Epirubicin
 | style="background-color:#fc8d59" |Seems to have inferior TTP
@@ Line 7,688: / Line 7,688: @@
 |rowspan=2|[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1991.9.2.305 Bonneterre & Hurteloup 1991]
 |rowspan=2|NR
-|rowspan=2 style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-de-esc)
+|rowspan=2 style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-de-esc)
 |[[#FEC_3|FEC]]; FEC 50
 | style="background-color:#fc8d59" |Seems to have inferior ORR
@@ Line 7,711: / Line 7,711: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1991.9.12.2148 Perez et al. 1991]
 |1985-1988
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[#Doxorubicin_monotherapy_2|Doxorubicin]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet endpoints of ORR/OS
@@ Line 7,717: / Line 7,717: @@
 | rowspan="2" |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.1996.14.4.1146 Bastholt et al. 1996]
 |rowspan=2|1987-1991
-| rowspan="2" style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| rowspan="2" style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |1. [[#Epirubicin_monotherapy_2|Epirubicin]]; 40 mg/m<sup>2</sup>
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior TTP
@@ Line 7,726: / Line 7,726: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2004.11.503 Ejlertsen et al. 2004 (SBG 9403)]
 |1995-1999
-|style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+|style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Epirubicin_.26_Vinorelbine_.28VE.29|VE]]
 | style="background-color:#fc8d59" |Seems to have inferior PFS
@@ Line 7,746: / Line 7,746: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1996.14.4.1165 Dogliotti et al. 1996]
 |1991-1993
-|style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+|style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |Epirubicin & Lonidamine
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior ORR
@@ Line 7,752: / Line 7,752: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2002.08.012 Berruti et al. 2002]
 |1995-1999
-|style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+|style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |1. Cisplatin & Epirubicin<br> 2. Cisplatin, Epirubicin, Lonidamine<br> 3. Epirubicin & Lonidamine
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of TTP
@@ Line 7,772: / Line 7,772: @@
 | [https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.1996.14.4.1146 Bastholt et al. 1996]
 |1987-1991
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |1. [[#Epirubicin_monotherapy_2|Epirubicin]]; 40 mg/m<sup>2</sup><br> 2. [[#Epirubicin_monotherapy_2|Epirubicin]]; 60 mg/m<sup>2</sup><br> 3. [[#Epirubicin_monotherapy_2|Epirubicin]]; 90 mg/m<sup>2</sup>
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of TTP
@@ Line 7,812: / Line 7,812: @@
 |[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/1097-0142(197708)40:2%3C625::AID-CNCR2820400206%3E3.0.CO;2-M Smalley et al. 1977]
 |1974-1975
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-de-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-de-esc)
 |[[Breast_cancer_-_historical#CMFVP_2|CMFVP]]
 | style="background-color:#d9ef8b" |Might have superior OS<sup>1</sup>
@@ Line 7,818: / Line 7,818: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1988.6.10.1611 Bennett et al. 1988]
 |1983-1985
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |CNF
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet endpoints of TTF/OS
@@ Line 7,830: / Line 7,830: @@
 |[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/%28SICI%291097-0142%2819990301%2985%3A5%3C1091%3A%3AAID-CNCR12%3E3.0.CO%3B2-A Blajman et al. 1999]
 |1991-1994
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |NA
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of ORR
@@ Line 7,836: / Line 7,836: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2001.19.6.1707 Jassem et al. 2001]
 |1996-1998
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Doxorubicin_.26_Paclitaxel_.28AT.29_2|AT (Taxol)]]
 | style="background-color:#fc8d59" |Seems to have inferior OS
@@ Line 7,842: / Line 7,842: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.06.236 Bontenbal et al. 2005]
 |1997-2002
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Docetaxel_.26_Doxorubicin_.28AT.29|AT (Taxotere)]]
 | style="background-color:#fc8d59" |Seems to have inferior OS
@@ Line 7,848: / Line 7,848: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.28.0982 Robert et al. 2011 (RIBBON-1)]
 |2005-2007
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#FAC_.26_Bevacizumab|FAC & Bevacizumab]]
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior PFS
@@ Line 7,873: / Line 7,873: @@
 |[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00666487 Alonso et al. 1995]
 |1988-1991
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |CNF
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet endpoints of ORR/OS
@@ Line 7,917: / Line 7,917: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1995.13.6.1443 Aisner et al. 1995 (CALGB 8281)]
 |1982-1987
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |1. VATH<br> 2. VATH/CMFVP
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of ORR
@@ Line 7,923: / Line 7,923: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2003.05.119 Parnes et al. 2003 (CALGB 9140)]
 |1991-1995
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |FAC & Leucovorin
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of ORR
@@ Line 7,946: / Line 7,946: @@
 |[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1097-0142(197911)44:5%3C1955::AID-CNCR2820440559%3E3.0.CO;2-P/abstract Hortobagyi et al. 1979]
 |1974-NR
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |FAC-BCG
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior OS in responders
@@ Line 7,968: / Line 7,968: @@
 |rowspan=2|[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1987.5.10.1523 Aisner et al. 1987]
 |rowspan=2|1976-1980
-|rowspan=2 style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+|rowspan=2 style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |1. [[Breast_cancer_-_historical#CAFVP|CAFVP]]
 | style="background-color:#d3d3d3" |Not reported
@@ Line 7,999: / Line 7,999: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2000.18.2.262 Sledge et al. 2000 (ECOG E3186)]
 |1988-1992
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |CAFTH
 | style="background-color:#fee08b" |Might have inferior TTF
@@ Line 8,049: / Line 8,049: @@
 |[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1097-0142(197805)41:5%3C1649::AID-CNCR2820410501%3E3.0.CO;2-J/abstract Bull et al. 1978]
 |NR
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[#CMF_2|CMF]]
 | style="background-color:#d9ef8b" |Might have superior ORR
@@ Line 8,055: / Line 8,055: @@
 |[https://www.ejcancer.com/article/0959-8049(94)90123-6/pdf Tominaga et al. 1994]
 |NR
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[Breast_cancer_-_historical#CAF_.26_MPA|CAF & MPA]]
 | style="background-color:#fc8d59" |Seems to have inferior ORR
@@ Line 8,109: / Line 8,109: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.28.0982 Robert et al. 2011 (RIBBON-1)]
 |2005-2007
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |[[#FAC_3|FAC]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior PFS <br>(HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.52-0.80)
@@ Line 8,145: / Line 8,145: @@
 |rowspan=2|[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1991.9.2.305 Bonneterre & Hurteloup 1991]
 |rowspan=2|NR
-|rowspan=2 style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+|rowspan=2 style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Epirubicin_monotherapy_2|Epirubicin]]
 | style="background-color:#91cf60" |Seems to have superior ORR
@@ Line 8,154: / Line 8,154: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1993.11.7.1253 Focan et al. 1993]
 |1985-1990
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#FEC_3|FEC]]; FEC 100
 | style="background-color:#fc8d59" |Seems to have inferior TTP
@@ Line 8,160: / Line 8,160: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1008295427877 Brufman et al. 1997 (HEPI 010)]
 |1989-1992
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#FEC_3|FEC]]; FEC 100
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior ORR
@@ Line 8,182: / Line 8,182: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1993.11.3.467 Blomqvist et al. 1993]
 |1987-1991
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#FEC_3|FEC]]; weekly
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior OS
@@ Line 8,204: / Line 8,204: @@
 |rowspan=2|[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1991.9.2.305 Bonneterre & Hurteloup 1991]
 |rowspan=2|NR
-|rowspan=2 style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+|rowspan=2 style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |[[#Epirubicin_monotherapy_2|Epirubicin]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior ORR
@@ Line 8,213: / Line 8,213: @@
 |[https://www.ejcancer.com/article/S0959-8049(00)00068-X/fulltext Pacini et al. 2000]
 |1991-1996
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |EM +/- Lonidamine
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior OS
@@ Line 8,219: / Line 8,219: @@
 |rowspan=2|[https://doi.org/10.1179/joc.2003.15.2.184 Capotorto et al. 2003]
 |rowspan=2|1995-1998
-|rowspan=2 style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+|rowspan=2 style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |1. Dose-dense FEC
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior ORR
@@ Line 8,250: / Line 8,250: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.12.106 Zielinksi et al. 2005 (CECOG BM1)]
 |1999-2002
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |GET
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of TTP
@@ Line 8,256: / Line 8,256: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.28.0982 Robert et al. 2011 (RIBBON-1)]
 |2005-2007
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#FEC_.26_Bevacizumab|FEC & Bevacizumab]]
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior PFS
@@ Line 8,279: / Line 8,279: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1993.11.7.1253 Focan et al. 1993]
 |1985-1990
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |[[#FEC_3|FEC]]; FEC 50
 | style="background-color:#91cf60" |Seems to have superior TTP
@@ Line 8,285: / Line 8,285: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1008295427877 Brufman et al. 1997 (HEPI 010)]
 |1989-1992
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |[[#FEC_3|FEC]]; FEC 50
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior ORR
@@ Line 8,291: / Line 8,291: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.28.0982 Robert et al. 2011 (RIBBON-1)]
 |2005-2007
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#FEC_.26_Bevacizumab|FEC & Bevacizumab]]
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior PFS
@@ Line 8,321: / Line 8,321: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.annonc.a010637 Conte et al. 1996]
 |1985-1990
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |DES-CEF
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of ORR
@@ Line 8,327: / Line 8,327: @@
 |[https://www.ejcancer.com/article/S0959-8049(05)80145-5/pdf Ejlertsen et al. 1993]
 |1986-1989
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#FEC_3|FEC]] x 18 mo
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior OS
@@ Line 8,333: / Line 8,333: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2001.19.8.2213 Del Mastro et al. 2001]
 |1994-1997
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |HD-CEF14
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of ORR
@@ Line 8,357: / Line 8,357: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1988.6.6.976 Ambrosini et al. 1988]
 |1983-1985
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[#FAC_3|FAC]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint
@@ Line 8,380: / Line 8,380: @@
 |[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1006387801960 Esteban et al. 1999]
 |1987-1993
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |CNF
 | style="background-color:#91cf60" |Seems to have superior OS
@@ Line 8,402: / Line 8,402: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2001.19.4.943 Ackland et al. 2001 (HEPI 013)]
 |1990-1992
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[#CMF_2|CMF]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior TTP
@@ Line 8,449: / Line 8,449: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.28.0982 Robert et al. 2011 (RIBBON-1)]
 |2005-2007
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |[[#FEC_3|FEC]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior PFS <br>(HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.52-0.80)
@@ Line 8,528: / Line 8,528: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2007.11.9362 Albain et al. 2008]
 |1999-2002
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-RT-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-RT-esc)
 |[[#Paclitaxel_monotherapy.2C_q3wk|Paclitaxel]]
 | style="background-color:#91cf60" |Seems to have superior OS
@@ Line 8,534: / Line 8,534: @@
 |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3621657/ Del Mastro et al. 2013 (B9E-IT-S376)]
 |2005-2010
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |1. [[#Docetaxel_.26_Gemcitabine|GD]]; weekly<br> 2. [[#Docetaxel_.26_Gemcitabine|GD]]; q3wk<br> 3. [[#Gemcitabine_.26_Paclitaxel|GT]]; weekly
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of TTP
@@ Line 8,567: / Line 8,567: @@
 |[https://www.spandidos-publications.com/ijo/45/5/2137 Lorusso et al. 2014]
 |2006-2011
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |NPLD & Vinorelbine
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of TTP
@@ Line 8,588: / Line 8,588: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdh393 Chan et al. 2004]
 |1996-1997
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[#Cyclophosphamide_.26_Epirubicin_.28EC.29_3|EC]]
 | style="background-color:#91cf60" |Seems to have superior TTP
@@ Line 8,624: / Line 8,624: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2007.11.6699 Seidman et al. 2008 (CALGB 9840)]
 |1998-NR
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[#Paclitaxel_monotherapy.2C_q3wk|Paclitaxel]]; q3wk
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior OS
@@ Line 8,630: / Line 8,630: @@
 |[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10549-008-0047-9 Fountzilas et al. 2008]
 |2002-2006
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-de-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-de-esc)
 |1. Carboplatin & Paclitaxel<br> 2. [[#Docetaxel_.26_Gemcitabine|Docetaxel & Gemcitabine]]
 | style="background-color:#91cf60" |Seems to have superior OS
@@ Line 8,636: / Line 8,636: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdw562 Martin et al. 2017 (BELLE-4)]
 |2012-2014
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |Buparlisib & Paclitaxel
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of PFS
@@ Line 8,657: / Line 8,657: @@
 |[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(15)00411-8/fulltext Takashima et al. 2015 (SELECT BC)]
 |2006-2010
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#S-1_monotherapy|S-1]]
 | style="background-color:#eeee01" |Seems to have non-inferior OS
@@ Line 8,664: / Line 8,664: @@
 |[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41416-019-0391-z Fujiwara et al. 2019 (A3105301)]
 |2012-2014
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |NK105
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Inconclusive whether non-inferior PFS
@@ Line 8,686: / Line 8,686: @@
 |[https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa072113 Miller et al. 2007 (ECOG E2100)]
 |2001-2004
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Paclitaxel_.26_Bevacizumab|Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab]]
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior PFS
@@ Line 8,692: / Line 8,692: @@
 |[https://www.ejcancer.com/article/S0959-8049(16)32470-4/fulltext Miles et al. 2016 (MERiDiAN)]
 |2012-2013
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Paclitaxel_.26_Bevacizumab|Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab]]
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior PFS
@@ Line 8,729: / Line 8,729: @@
 |[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(15)00411-8/fulltext Takashima et al. 2015 (SELECT BC)]
 |2006-2010
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#S-1_monotherapy|S-1]]
 | style="background-color:#eeee01" |Seems to have non-inferior OS
@@ Line 8,778: / Line 8,778: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2004.08.048 Winer et al. 2004 (CALGB 9342)]
 |1994-1997
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |1. [[#Paclitaxel_monotherapy.2C_q3wk|Paclitaxel]]; 210 mg/m<sup>2</sup> q3wk<br> 2. [[#Paclitaxel_monotherapy.2C_q3wk|Paclitaxel]]; 250 mg/m<sup>2</sup> q3wk
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of ORR
@@ Line 8,785: / Line 8,785: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2007.11.6699 Seidman et al. 2008 (CALGB 9840)]
 |1998-NR
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Paclitaxel_monotherapy.2C_weekly_3|Paclitaxel]]; weekly
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior OS
@@ Line 8,792: / Line 8,792: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2007.11.9362 Albain et al. 2008]
 |1999-2002
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Gemcitabine_.26_Paclitaxel|GT]]
 | style="background-color:#fc8d59" |Seems to have inferior OS
@@ Line 8,799: / Line 8,799: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2005.04.937 Gradishar et al. 2005 (CA012-0)]
 |2001-2002
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#nab-Paclitaxel_monotherapy_2|nab-Paclitaxel]]
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior TTP
@@ Line 8,806: / Line 8,806: @@
 |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2651098/ Di Leo et al. 2008 (EGF30001)]
 |2004-2005
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |Lapatinib & Paclitaxel
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of TTP
@@ Line 8,813: / Line 8,813: @@
 |[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(15)00411-8/fulltext Takashima et al. 2015 (SELECT BC)]
 |2006-2010
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#S-1_monotherapy|S-1]]
 | style="background-color:#eeee01" |Seems to have non-inferior OS
@@ Line 8,820: / Line 8,820: @@
 |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5512366/ Park et al. 2016 (GPMBC301)]
 |2008-2013
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |Genexol-PM
 | style="background-color:#eeee01" |Seems to have non-inferior ORR
@@ Line 8,842: / Line 8,842: @@
 |rowspan=2|[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2003.08.013 Sledge et al. 2003 (ECOG E1193)]
 |rowspan=2|1993-1995
-|rowspan=2 style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+|rowspan=2 style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |1. [[#Doxorubicin_.26_Paclitaxel_.28AT.29_2|AT (Taxol)]]
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior TTF
@@ Line 8,866: / Line 8,866: @@
 |[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(15)00411-8/fulltext Takashima et al. 2015 (SELECT BC)]
 |2006-2010
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#S-1_monotherapy|S-1]]
 | style="background-color:#eeee01" |Seems to have non-inferior OS
@@ Line 8,887: / Line 8,887: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1999.17.8.2355 Bishop et al. 1999]
 |1993-NR
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-de-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-de-esc)
 |[[Breast_cancer_-_historical#CMFP_2|CMFP]]
 | style="background-color:#91cf60" |Seems to have superior OS
@@ Line 8,893: / Line 8,893: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2000.18.4.724 Paridaens et al. 2000 (EORTC 10923)]
 |1993-1996
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[#Doxorubicin_monotherapy_2|Doxorubicin]]
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior PFS
@@ Line 8,919: / Line 8,919: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1999.17.11.3403 Smith et al. 1996 (NSABP B-26)]
 |1994-1996
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Paclitaxel_monotherapy.2C_q3wk|Paclitaxel]]; 250 mg/m<sup>2</sup> over 3 hours
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of ORR
@@ Line 8,965: / Line 8,965: @@
 |[https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa072113 Miller et al. 2007 (ECOG E2100)]
 |2001-2004
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-RT-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-RT-esc)
 |[[#Paclitaxel_monotherapy.2C_weekly_3|Paclitaxel]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior PFS<br>Median PFS: 11.8 vs 5.9 mo<br>(HR 0.60)
@@ Line 8,971: / Line 8,971: @@
 |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4617186/ Robert et al. 2011 (SUN 1094)]
 |2006-2009
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |Paclitaxel & Sunitinib
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of PFS
@@ Line 8,977: / Line 8,977: @@
 |[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(12)70566-1/fulltext Lang et al. 2013 (TURANDOT)]
 |2008-2010
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[#Capecitabine_.26_Bevacizumab|Capecitabine & Bevacizumab]]
 | style="background-color:#eeee01" |Non-inferior OS<sup>1</sup>
@@ Line 8,983: / Line 8,983: @@
 |rowspan=2|[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4500830/ Rugo et al. 2015 (CALGB 40502/NCCTG N063H)]
 |rowspan=2|2008-2011
-| rowspan=2 style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| rowspan=2 style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |1. [[Stub#Ixabepilone_.26_Bevacizumab|Ixabepilone & Bevacizumab]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior PFS
@@ Line 8,992: / Line 8,992: @@
 |[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc5057418/ Rochlitz et al. 2016 (SAKK 24/09)]
 |2010-2012
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |Capecitabine, Cyclophosphamide, Bevacizumab
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet secondary endpoint of PFS
@@ Line 8,998: / Line 8,998: @@
 |[https://www.ejcancer.com/article/S0959-8049(16)32470-4/fulltext Miles et al. 2016 (MERiDiAN)]
 |2012-2013
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |[[#Paclitaxel_monotherapy.2C_weekly_3|Paclitaxel]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior PFS<br>Median PFS: 11 vs 8.8 mo<br>(HR 0.68, 99% CI 0.51-0.91)
@@ Line 9,105: / Line 9,105: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2005.04.937 Gradishar et al. 2005 (CA012-0)]
 |2001-2002
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[#Paclitaxel_monotherapy.2C_q3wk|Paclitaxel]]; q3wk
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior TTP
@@ Line 9,111: / Line 9,111: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.28.0982 Robert et al. 2011 (RIBBON-1)]
 |2005-2007
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Paclitaxel.2C_nanoparticle_albumin-bound_.26_Bevacizumab|nab-Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab]]
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior PFS
@@ Line 9,170: / Line 9,170: @@
 |rowspan=2|[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4500830/ Rugo et al. 2015 (CALGB 40502/NCCTG N063H)]
 |rowspan=2|2008-2011
-| rowspan=2 style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| rowspan=2 style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |1. [[Stub#Ixabepilone_.26_Bevacizumab|Ixabepilone & Bevacizumab]]
 | style="background-color:#d3d3d3" |Not reported
@@ Line 9,195: / Line 9,195: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.28.0982 Robert et al. 2011 (RIBBON-1)]
 |2005-2007
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |[[#nab-Paclitaxel_monotherapy_2|nab-Paclitaxel]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior PFS <br>(HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.52-0.80)
@@ Line 9,281: / Line 9,281: @@
 |[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(15)00411-8/fulltext Takashima et al. 2015 (SELECT BC)]
 |2006-2010
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |1. [[#Docetaxel_monotherapy_3|Docetaxel]]<br> 2. [[#Paclitaxel_monotherapy.2C_weekly_3|Paclitaxel]]
 | style="background-color:#eeee01" |Seems to have non-inferior OS
@@ Line 9,316: / Line 9,316: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdp498 Mavroudis et al. 2009 (HORG CT/02.09)]
 |2002-2007
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[#Docetaxel_.26_Epirubicin_.28DE.29_2|DE]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of TTP
@@ Line 9,337: / Line 9,337: @@
 |[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/cncr.29492 Wang et al. 2015 (ML25241)]
 |2010-2013
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[Stub#Capecitabine_.26_Vinorelbine|NX]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Inconclusive whether non-inferior PFS
@@ Line 9,360: / Line 9,360: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdq578 Seidman et al. 2010 (B9E-MC-S273)]
 |2002-2008
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Docetaxel_.26_Gemcitabine|GD]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of TTP
@@ Line 9,395: / Line 9,395: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2004.11.503 Ejlertsen et al. 2004 (SBG 9403)]
 |1995-1999
-|style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+|style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |[[#Epirubicin_monotherapy_2|Epirubicin]]
 | style="background-color:#91cf60" |Seems to have superior PFS
@@ Line 9,436: / Line 9,436: @@
 |[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(14)70444-9/fulltext Gligorov et al. 2014 (IMELDA)]
 |2009-2011
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Capecitabine_.26_Bevacizumab_2|Capecitabine & Bevacizumab]]
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior OS
@@ Line 9,470: / Line 9,470: @@
 |[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(14)70444-9/fulltext Gligorov et al. 2014 (IMELDA)]
 |2009-2011
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |[[#Bevacizumab_monotherapy_2|Bevacizumab]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior OS <br>(HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.26-0.69)
@@ Line 9,503: / Line 9,503: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2012.45.2490 Park et al. 2013 (KCSG-BR07-02)]
 |2007-2010
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |[[Breast_cancer_-_null_regimens#Observation_2|Observation]]
 | style="background-color:#91cf60" |Seems to have superior OS
@@ Line 9,565: / Line 9,565: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.34.1255 Brufsky et al. 2011 (RIBBON-2)]
 |2006-2008
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |1. [[#Capecitabine_.26_Bevacizumab_3|Capecitabine & Bevacizumab]]<br> 2. [[#Docetaxel_.26_Bevacizumab_3|Docetaxel & Bevacizumab]]<br> 3. [[#Gemcitabine_.26_Bevacizumab|Gemcitabine & Bevacizumab]]<br> 4. [[#Paclitaxel_.26_Bevacizumab_2|Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab]]<br> 5. [[#Paclitaxel.2C_nanoparticle_albumin-bound_.26_Bevacizumab_2|nab-Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab]] <br> 6. [[#Vinorelbine_.26_Bevacizumab|Vinorelbine & Bevacizumab]]
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior PFS
@@ Line 9,571: / Line 9,571: @@
 |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2855860/ Barrios et al. 2010 (SUN 1107)]
 |2006-2009
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |Sunitinib
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior PFS<br>Median PFS: 4.2 vs 2.8 mo<br>(HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.53-0.86)
@@ Line 9,577: / Line 9,577: @@
 |[https://www.clinical-breast-cancer.com/article/S1526-8209(17)30005-8/fulltext Baselga et al. 2017 (RESILIENCE)]
 |2010-NR
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |Capecitabine & Sorafenib
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of PFS
@@ Line 9,583: / Line 9,583: @@
 |[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(14)70439-5/fulltext von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)]
 |2011-2013
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |1. [[#Capecitabine_.26_Bevacizumab_3|Capecitabine & Bevacizumab]]<br>2. [[#Docetaxel_.26_Bevacizumab_3|Docetaxel & Bevacizumab]]<br>3. [[#Doxorubicin_.26_Bevacizumab|Doxorubicin & Bevacizumab]]<br>4. [[#Doxorubicin_non-pegylated_liposomal_.26_Bevacizumab|NPLD & Bevacizumab]]<br>5. [[#Doxorubicin_pegylated_liposomal_.26_Bevacizumab|PLD & Bevacizumab]]<br>6. [[#Gemcitabine_.26_Bevacizumab|Gemcitabine & Bevacizumab]]<br>7. [[#Paclitaxel.2C_nanoparticle_albumin-bound_.26_Bevacizumab_2|nab-Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab]]
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior PFS
@@ Line 9,616: / Line 9,616: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.05.098 Miller et al. 2005 (AVF2119g)]
 |2000-2002
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Capecitabine_.26_Bevacizumab_3|Capecitabine & Bevacizumab]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of PFS
@@ Line 9,622: / Line 9,622: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdr405 Pallis et al. 2011 (HORG CT/02.11)]
 |2002-2008
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |Gemcitabine & Vinorelbine
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of PFS
@@ Line 9,628: / Line 9,628: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2007.12.6557 Thomas et al. 2007 (CA163-046)]
 |2003-2006
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Capecitabine_.26_Ixabepilone|Capecitabine & Ixabepilone]]
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior PFS
@@ Line 9,634: / Line 9,634: @@
 |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2903325/ Sparano et al. 2010 (CA163-048)]
 |2003-2006
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Capecitabine_.26_Ixabepilone|Capecitabine & Ixabepilone]]
 | style="background-color:#fee08b" |Might have inferior OS
@@ Line 9,640: / Line 9,640: @@
 |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2855860/ Barrios et al. 2010 (SUN 1107)]
 |2006-2009
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |Sunitinib
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior PFS<br>Median PFS: 4.2 vs 2.8 mo<br>(HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.53-0.86)
@@ Line 9,646: / Line 9,646: @@
 |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4463422/ Kaufman et al. 2015 (E7389-G000-301)]
 |2006-2009
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Eribulin_monotherapy|Eribulin]]
 | style="background-color:#fee08b" |Might have inferior OS
@@ Line 9,652: / Line 9,652: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2012.43.3391 Crown et al. 2013 (A6181099)]
 |2007-2009
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |Capecitabine & Sunitinib
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of PFS
@@ Line 9,664: / Line 9,664: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdy063 Martin et al. 2018 (L00070 IN 305 B0)]
 |2009-2011
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |Capecitabine & Vinflunine
 | style="background-color:#fc8d59" |Seems to have inferior PFS
@@ Line 9,670: / Line 9,670: @@
 |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6333992/ Park et al. 2018 (PROCEED)]
 |2011-2016
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |CAPIRI
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of PFS
@@ Line 9,676: / Line 9,676: @@
 |[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(17)30088-8/fulltext Zhang et al. 2017 (BG01-1323L)]
 |2014-2015
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |Capecitabine & Utidelone
 | style="background-color:#fc8d59" |Seems to have inferior OS<sup>1</sup>
@@ Line 9,732: / Line 9,732: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.34.1255 Brufsky et al. 2011 (RIBBON-2)]
 |2006-2008
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |1. [[#Capecitabine_monotherapy_3|Capecitabine]]<br> 2. [[#Docetaxel_monotherapy_4|Docetaxel]]<br> 3. [[#Gemcitabine_monotherapy_2|Gemcitabine]]<br> 4. [[#Paclitaxel_monotherapy.2C_weekly_4|Paclitaxel]]<br> 5. [[#nab-Paclitaxel_monotherapy_3|nab-Paclitaxel]]<br> 6. [[#Vinorelbine_monotherapy_2|Vinorelbine]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior PFS<br>Median PFS: 7.2 vs 5.1 mo<br>(HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.64-0.93)
@@ Line 9,738: / Line 9,738: @@
 |[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(14)70439-5/fulltext von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)]
 |2011-2013
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |1. [[#Capecitabine_monotherapy_3|Capecitabine]]<br>2. [[#Docetaxel_monotherapy_4|Docetaxel]]<br>3. [[#Doxorubicin_monotherapy_3|Doxorubicin]]<br>4. [[#Doxorubicin_non-pegylated_liposomal_monotherapy|NPLD]]<br>5. [[#Doxorubicin_pegylated_liposomal_monotherapy_2|PLD]]<br>6. [[#Gemcitabine_monotherapy_2|Gemcitabine]]<br>7. [[#nab-Paclitaxel_monotherapy_3|nab-Paclitaxel]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior PFS<br>Median PFS: 6.3 vs 4.2 mo<br>(HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61-0.93)
@@ Line 9,760: / Line 9,760: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.05.098 Miller et al. 2005 (AVF2119g)]
 |2000-2002
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |[[#Capecitabine_monotherapy_3|Capecitabine]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of PFS
@@ Line 9,796: / Line 9,796: @@
 |[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10549-016-4075-6 Yamamoto et al. 2016 (JO21095)]
 |2008-2010
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |[[#Docetaxel_monotherapy_4|Docetaxel]]
 | style="background-color:#91cf60" |Seems to have superior PFS
@@ Line 9,817: / Line 9,817: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2002.09.002 O'Shaughnessy et al. 2002]
 |NR
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-RT-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-RT-esc)
 |[[#Docetaxel_monotherapy_4|Docetaxel]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior OS<sup>1</sup>
@@ Line 9,823: / Line 9,823: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2007.15.8485 Chan et al. 2009]
 |2002-2004
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |GD
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of PFS
@@ Line 9,857: / Line 9,857: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2007.12.6557 Thomas et al. 2007 (CA163-046)]
 |2003-2006
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-RT-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-RT-esc)
 |[[#Capecitabine_monotherapy_3|Capecitabine]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior PFS<br>Median PFS: 5.8 vs 4.2 mo<br>(HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.64-0.88)
@@ Line 9,863: / Line 9,863: @@
 |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2903325/ Sparano et al. 2010 (CA163-048)]
 |2003-2006
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-RT-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-RT-esc)
 |[[#Capecitabine_monotherapy_3|Capecitabine]]
 | style="background-color:#d9ef8b" |Might have superior OS<br>Median OS: 16.4 vs 15.6 mo<br>(HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.78-1.03)
@@ Line 10,008: / Line 10,008: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdy051 Cortes et al. 2018 (L00070 IN 308 B0)]
 |2009-2011
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |Vinflunine
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of OS
@@ Line 10,083: / Line 10,083: @@
 | rowspan="2" |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2005.05.0294 Harvey et al. 2006 (TAX 313)]
 | rowspan="2" |1995-2001
-| rowspan="2" style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-RT-de-esc)
+| rowspan="2" style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-RT-de-esc)
 |1. [[#Docetaxel_monotherapy_4|Docetaxel]]; 75 mg/m<sup>2</sup> q3wk
 | style="background-color:#fee08b" |Might have inferior TTP
@@ Line 10,092: / Line 10,092: @@
 |[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(14)70439-5/fulltext von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)]
 |2011-2013
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |1. [[#Capecitabine_.26_Bevacizumab_3|Capecitabine & Bevacizumab]]<br>2. [[#Docetaxel_.26_Bevacizumab_3|Docetaxel & Bevacizumab]]<br>3. [[#Doxorubicin_.26_Bevacizumab|Doxorubicin & Bevacizumab]]<br>4. [[#Doxorubicin_non-pegylated_liposomal_.26_Bevacizumab|NPLD & Bevacizumab]]<br>5. [[#Doxorubicin_pegylated_liposomal_.26_Bevacizumab|PLD & Bevacizumab]]<br>6. [[#Gemcitabine_.26_Bevacizumab|Gemcitabine & Bevacizumab]]<br>7. [[#Paclitaxel.2C_nanoparticle_albumin-bound_.26_Bevacizumab_2|nab-Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab]]
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior PFS
@@ Line 10,113: / Line 10,113: @@
 |[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10549-016-4075-6 Yamamoto et al. 2016 (JO21095)]
 |2008-2010
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Capecitabine_.26_Docetaxel_.28TX.29_3|TX]]
 | style="background-color:#fc8d59" |Seems to have inferior OS
@@ Line 10,135: / Line 10,135: @@
 | rowspan="2" |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2005.05.0294 Harvey et al. 2006 (TAX 313)]
 | rowspan="2" |1995-2001
-| rowspan="2" style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-RT-esc)
+| rowspan="2" style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-RT-esc)
 |1. [[#Docetaxel_monotherapy_4|Docetaxel]]; 60 mg/m<sup>2</sup> q3wk
 | style="background-color:#d9ef8b" |Might have superior TTP
@@ Line 10,144: / Line 10,144: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.34.1255 Brufsky et al. 2011 (RIBBON-2)]
 |2006-2008
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |1. [[#Capecitabine_.26_Bevacizumab_3|Capecitabine & Bevacizumab]]<br> 2. [[#Docetaxel_.26_Bevacizumab_3|Docetaxel & Bevacizumab]]<br> 3. [[#Gemcitabine_.26_Bevacizumab|Gemcitabine & Bevacizumab]]<br> 4. [[#Paclitaxel_.26_Bevacizumab_2|Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab]]<br> 5. [[#Paclitaxel.2C_nanoparticle_albumin-bound_.26_Bevacizumab_2|nab-Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab]] <br> 6. [[#Vinorelbine_.26_Bevacizumab|Vinorelbine & Bevacizumab]]
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior PFS
@@ Line 10,150: / Line 10,150: @@
 |[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(14)70439-5/fulltext von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)]
 |2011-2013
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |1. [[#Capecitabine_.26_Bevacizumab_3|Capecitabine & Bevacizumab]]<br>2. [[#Docetaxel_.26_Bevacizumab_3|Docetaxel & Bevacizumab]]<br>3. [[#Doxorubicin_.26_Bevacizumab|Doxorubicin & Bevacizumab]]<br>4. [[#Doxorubicin_non-pegylated_liposomal_.26_Bevacizumab|NPLD & Bevacizumab]]<br>5. [[#Doxorubicin_pegylated_liposomal_.26_Bevacizumab|PLD & Bevacizumab]]<br>6. [[#Gemcitabine_.26_Bevacizumab|Gemcitabine & Bevacizumab]]<br>7. [[#Paclitaxel.2C_nanoparticle_albumin-bound_.26_Bevacizumab_2|nab-Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab]]
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior PFS
@@ Line 10,179: / Line 10,179: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1999.17.5.1413 Nabholtz et al. 1999 (TAX 304)]
 |NR
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-RT-de-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-RT-de-esc)
 |MV
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior OS
@@ Line 10,186: / Line 10,186: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.1999.17.8.2341 Chan et al. 1999 (TAX 303)]
 |1994-1997
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-RT-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-RT-switch-ic)
 |[[#Doxorubicin_monotherapy_3|Doxorubicin]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior ORR
@@ Line 10,193: / Line 10,193: @@
 |[https://www.ejcancer.com/article/S0959-8049(99)00122-7/fulltext Sjöström et al. 1999]
 |1994-1997
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-de-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-de-esc)
 |MF
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior TTP
@@ Line 10,200: / Line 10,200: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2002.09.002 O'Shaughnessy et al. 2002]
 |NR
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Capecitabine_.26_Docetaxel_.28TX.29_3|TX]]
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior OS<sup>1</sup>
@@ Line 10,207: / Line 10,207: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.02.027 Jones et al. 2005 (TAX 311)]
 |1994-2001
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[#Paclitaxel_monotherapy.2C_q3wk_2|Paclitaxel]]
 | style="background-color:#91cf60" |Seems to have superior OS
@@ Line 10,214: / Line 10,214: @@
 |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2408916/ Bonneterre et al. 2002]
 |1995-1997
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-de-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-de-esc)
 |5-FU & Vinorelbine
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of TTP
@@ Line 10,221: / Line 10,221: @@
 | rowspan="2" |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2005.05.0294 Harvey et al. 2006 (TAX 313)]
 |rowspan=2|1995-2001
-| rowspan="2" style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-RT-esc)
+| rowspan="2" style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-RT-esc)
 |1. [[#Docetaxel_monotherapy_4|Docetaxel]]; 60 mg/m<sup>2</sup> q3wk
 | style="background-color:#d9ef8b" |Might have superior TTP
@@ Line 10,239: / Line 10,239: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.33.9507 Nielsen et al. 2011]
 |2001-2005
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |Docetaxel & Gemcitabine
 | style="background-color:#fee08b" |Might have inferior TTP
@@ Line 10,246: / Line 10,246: @@
 |[https://www.ejcancer.com/article/S0959-8049(10)01207-4/fulltext Schröder et al. 2011]
 |2001-2006
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Docetaxel_monotherapy_4|Docetaxel]]; weekly
 | style="background-color:#91cf60" |Seems to have superior OS
@@ Line 10,253: / Line 10,253: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.34.1255 Brufsky et al. 2011 (RIBBON-2)]
 |2006-2008
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |1. [[#Capecitabine_.26_Bevacizumab_3|Capecitabine & Bevacizumab]]<br> 2. [[#Docetaxel_.26_Bevacizumab_3|Docetaxel & Bevacizumab]]<br> 3. [[#Gemcitabine_.26_Bevacizumab|Gemcitabine & Bevacizumab]]<br> 4. [[#Paclitaxel_.26_Bevacizumab_2|Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab]]<br> 5. [[#Paclitaxel.2C_nanoparticle_albumin-bound_.26_Bevacizumab_2|nab-Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab]] <br> 6. [[#Vinorelbine_.26_Bevacizumab|Vinorelbine & Bevacizumab]]
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior PFS
@@ Line 10,260: / Line 10,260: @@
 |[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(14)70439-5/fulltext von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)]
 |2011-2013
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |1. [[#Capecitabine_.26_Bevacizumab_3|Capecitabine & Bevacizumab]]<br>2. [[#Docetaxel_.26_Bevacizumab_3|Docetaxel & Bevacizumab]]<br>3. [[#Doxorubicin_.26_Bevacizumab|Doxorubicin & Bevacizumab]]<br>4. [[#Doxorubicin_non-pegylated_liposomal_.26_Bevacizumab|NPLD & Bevacizumab]]<br>5. [[#Doxorubicin_pegylated_liposomal_.26_Bevacizumab|PLD & Bevacizumab]]<br>6. [[#Gemcitabine_.26_Bevacizumab|Gemcitabine & Bevacizumab]]<br>7. [[#Paclitaxel.2C_nanoparticle_albumin-bound_.26_Bevacizumab_2|nab-Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab]]
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior PFS
@@ Line 10,310: / Line 10,310: @@
 |[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(14)70439-5/fulltext von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)]
 |2011-2013
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |1. [[#Capecitabine_monotherapy_3|Capecitabine]]<br>2. [[#Docetaxel_monotherapy_4|Docetaxel]]<br>3. [[#Doxorubicin_monotherapy_3|Doxorubicin]]<br>4. [[#Doxorubicin_non-pegylated_liposomal_monotherapy|NPLD]]<br>5. [[#Doxorubicin_pegylated_liposomal_monotherapy_2|PLD]]<br>6. [[#Gemcitabine_monotherapy_2|Gemcitabine]]<br>7. [[#nab-Paclitaxel_monotherapy_3|nab-Paclitaxel]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior PFS<br>Median PFS: 6.3 vs 4.2 mo<br>(HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61-0.93)
@@ Line 10,333: / Line 10,333: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.34.1255 Brufsky et al. 2011 (RIBBON-2)]
 |2006-2008
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |1. [[#Capecitabine_monotherapy_3|Capecitabine]]<br> 2. [[#Docetaxel_monotherapy_4|Docetaxel]]<br> 3. [[#Gemcitabine_monotherapy_2|Gemcitabine]]<br> 4. [[#Paclitaxel_monotherapy.2C_weekly_4|Paclitaxel]]<br> 5. [[#nab-Paclitaxel_monotherapy_3|nab-Paclitaxel]]<br> 6. [[#Vinorelbine_monotherapy_2|Vinorelbine]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior PFS<br>Median PFS: 7.2 vs 5.1 mo<br>(HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.64-0.93)
@@ Line 10,339: / Line 10,339: @@
 |[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(14)70439-5/fulltext von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)]
 |2011-2013
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |1. [[#Capecitabine_monotherapy_3|Capecitabine]]<br>2. [[#Docetaxel_monotherapy_4|Docetaxel]]<br>3. [[#Doxorubicin_monotherapy_3|Doxorubicin]]<br>4. [[#Doxorubicin_non-pegylated_liposomal_monotherapy|NPLD]]<br>5. [[#Doxorubicin_pegylated_liposomal_monotherapy_2|PLD]]<br>6. [[#Gemcitabine_monotherapy_2|Gemcitabine]]<br>7. [[#nab-Paclitaxel_monotherapy_3|nab-Paclitaxel]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior PFS<br>Median PFS: 6.3 vs 4.2 mo<br>(HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61-0.93)
@@ Line 10,362: / Line 10,362: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.34.1255 Brufsky et al. 2011 (RIBBON-2)]
 |2006-2008
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |1. [[#Capecitabine_monotherapy_3|Capecitabine]]<br> 2. [[#Docetaxel_monotherapy_4|Docetaxel]]<br> 3. [[#Gemcitabine_monotherapy_2|Gemcitabine]]<br> 4. [[#Paclitaxel_monotherapy.2C_weekly_4|Paclitaxel]]<br> 5. [[#nab-Paclitaxel_monotherapy_3|nab-Paclitaxel]]<br> 6. [[#Vinorelbine_monotherapy_2|Vinorelbine]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior PFS<br>Median PFS: 7.2 vs 5.1 mo<br>(HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.64-0.93)
@@ Line 10,368: / Line 10,368: @@
 |[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(14)70439-5/fulltext von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)]
 |2011-2013
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |1. [[#Capecitabine_monotherapy_3|Capecitabine]]<br>2. [[#Docetaxel_monotherapy_4|Docetaxel]]<br>3. [[#Doxorubicin_monotherapy_3|Doxorubicin]]<br>4. [[#Doxorubicin_non-pegylated_liposomal_monotherapy|NPLD]]<br>5. [[#Doxorubicin_pegylated_liposomal_monotherapy_2|PLD]]<br>6. [[#Gemcitabine_monotherapy_2|Gemcitabine]]<br>7. [[#nab-Paclitaxel_monotherapy_3|nab-Paclitaxel]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior PFS<br>Median PFS: 6.3 vs 4.2 mo<br>(HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61-0.93)
@@ Line 10,402: / Line 10,402: @@
 |[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(14)70439-5/fulltext von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)]
 |2011-2013
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |1. [[#Capecitabine_.26_Bevacizumab_3|Capecitabine & Bevacizumab]]<br>2. [[#Docetaxel_.26_Bevacizumab_3|Docetaxel & Bevacizumab]]<br>3. [[#Doxorubicin_.26_Bevacizumab|Doxorubicin & Bevacizumab]]<br>4. [[#Doxorubicin_non-pegylated_liposomal_.26_Bevacizumab|NPLD & Bevacizumab]]<br>5. [[#Doxorubicin_pegylated_liposomal_.26_Bevacizumab|PLD & Bevacizumab]]<br>6. [[#Gemcitabine_.26_Bevacizumab|Gemcitabine & Bevacizumab]]<br>7. [[#Paclitaxel.2C_nanoparticle_albumin-bound_.26_Bevacizumab_2|nab-Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab]]
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior PFS
@@ Line 10,423: / Line 10,423: @@
 |[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(14)70439-5/fulltext von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)]
 |2011-2013
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |1. [[#Capecitabine_.26_Bevacizumab_3|Capecitabine & Bevacizumab]]<br>2. [[#Docetaxel_.26_Bevacizumab_3|Docetaxel & Bevacizumab]]<br>3. [[#Doxorubicin_.26_Bevacizumab|Doxorubicin & Bevacizumab]]<br>4. [[#Doxorubicin_non-pegylated_liposomal_.26_Bevacizumab|NPLD & Bevacizumab]]<br>5. [[#Doxorubicin_pegylated_liposomal_.26_Bevacizumab|PLD & Bevacizumab]]<br>6. [[#Gemcitabine_.26_Bevacizumab|Gemcitabine & Bevacizumab]]<br>7. [[#Paclitaxel.2C_nanoparticle_albumin-bound_.26_Bevacizumab_2|nab-Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab]]
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior PFS
@@ Line 10,444: / Line 10,444: @@
 |[https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article-abstract/83/15/1077/882648 Cowan et al. 1991 (SWOG S8203)]
 |1983-1986
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |1. Bisantrene<br> 2. [[Breast_cancer_-_historical#Mitoxantrone_monotherapy|Mitoxantrone]]
 | style="background-color:#91cf60" |Seems to have superior OS
@@ Line 10,450: / Line 10,450: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2000.18.12.2385 Norris et al. 2000 (NCIC-CTG MA.8)]
 |1992-1995
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |Doxorubicin & Vinorelbine
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of OS
@@ Line 10,456: / Line 10,456: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2003.04.075 Reyno et al. 2004 (NCIC CT MA.19)]
 |1998-1999
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |Doxorubicin & Tesmilifene
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of PFS
@@ Line 10,462: / Line 10,462: @@
 |[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(14)70439-5/fulltext von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)]
 |2011-2013
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |1. [[#Capecitabine_.26_Bevacizumab_3|Capecitabine & Bevacizumab]]<br>2. [[#Docetaxel_.26_Bevacizumab_3|Docetaxel & Bevacizumab]]<br>3. [[#Doxorubicin_.26_Bevacizumab|Doxorubicin & Bevacizumab]]<br>4. [[#Doxorubicin_non-pegylated_liposomal_.26_Bevacizumab|NPLD & Bevacizumab]]<br>5. [[#Doxorubicin_pegylated_liposomal_.26_Bevacizumab|PLD & Bevacizumab]]<br>6. [[#Gemcitabine_.26_Bevacizumab|Gemcitabine & Bevacizumab]]<br>7. [[#Paclitaxel.2C_nanoparticle_albumin-bound_.26_Bevacizumab_2|nab-Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab]]
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior PFS
@@ Line 10,483: / Line 10,483: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.1999.17.8.2341 Chan et al. 1999 (TAX 303)]
 |1994-1997
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Docetaxel_monotherapy_4|Docetaxel]]
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior ORR
@@ Line 10,503: / Line 10,503: @@
 |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2150384/ Bontenbal et al. 1998 (EORTC 10811)]
 |1982-1986
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |Epirubicin
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of ORR
@@ Line 10,509: / Line 10,509: @@
 |[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(14)70439-5/fulltext von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)]
 |2011-2013
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |1. [[#Capecitabine_.26_Bevacizumab_3|Capecitabine & Bevacizumab]]<br>2. [[#Docetaxel_.26_Bevacizumab_3|Docetaxel & Bevacizumab]]<br>3. [[#Doxorubicin_.26_Bevacizumab|Doxorubicin & Bevacizumab]]<br>4. [[#Doxorubicin_non-pegylated_liposomal_.26_Bevacizumab|NPLD & Bevacizumab]]<br>5. [[#Doxorubicin_pegylated_liposomal_.26_Bevacizumab|PLD & Bevacizumab]]<br>6. [[#Gemcitabine_.26_Bevacizumab|Gemcitabine & Bevacizumab]]<br>7. [[#Paclitaxel.2C_nanoparticle_albumin-bound_.26_Bevacizumab_2|nab-Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab]]
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior PFS
@@ Line 10,544: / Line 10,544: @@
 |[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(14)70439-5/fulltext von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)]
 |2011-2013
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |1. [[#Capecitabine_monotherapy_3|Capecitabine]]<br>2. [[#Docetaxel_monotherapy_4|Docetaxel]]<br>3. [[#Doxorubicin_monotherapy_3|Doxorubicin]]<br>4. [[#Doxorubicin_non-pegylated_liposomal_monotherapy|NPLD]]<br>5. [[#Doxorubicin_pegylated_liposomal_monotherapy_2|PLD]]<br>6. [[#Gemcitabine_monotherapy_2|Gemcitabine]]<br>7. [[#nab-Paclitaxel_monotherapy_3|nab-Paclitaxel]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior PFS<br>Median PFS: 6.3 vs 4.2 mo<br>(HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61-0.93)
@@ Line 10,567: / Line 10,567: @@
 |[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(14)70439-5/fulltext von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)]
 |2011-2013
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |1. [[#Capecitabine_monotherapy_3|Capecitabine]]<br>2. [[#Docetaxel_monotherapy_4|Docetaxel]]<br>3. [[#Doxorubicin_monotherapy_3|Doxorubicin]]<br>4. [[#Doxorubicin_non-pegylated_liposomal_monotherapy|NPLD]]<br>5. [[#Doxorubicin_pegylated_liposomal_monotherapy_2|PLD]]<br>6. [[#Gemcitabine_monotherapy_2|Gemcitabine]]<br>7. [[#nab-Paclitaxel_monotherapy_3|nab-Paclitaxel]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior PFS<br>Median PFS: 6.3 vs 4.2 mo<br>(HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61-0.93)
@@ Line 10,590: / Line 10,590: @@
 |[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(14)70439-5/fulltext von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)]
 |2011-2013
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |1. [[#Capecitabine_monotherapy_3|Capecitabine]]<br>2. [[#Docetaxel_monotherapy_4|Docetaxel]]<br>3. [[#Doxorubicin_monotherapy_3|Doxorubicin]]<br>4. [[#Doxorubicin_non-pegylated_liposomal_monotherapy|NPLD]]<br>5. [[#Doxorubicin_pegylated_liposomal_monotherapy_2|PLD]]<br>6. [[#Gemcitabine_monotherapy_2|Gemcitabine]]<br>7. [[#nab-Paclitaxel_monotherapy_3|nab-Paclitaxel]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior PFS<br>Median PFS: 6.3 vs 4.2 mo<br>(HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61-0.93)
@@ Line 10,613: / Line 10,613: @@
 |[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(14)70439-5/fulltext von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)]
 |2011-2013
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |1. [[#Capecitabine_monotherapy_3|Capecitabine]]<br>2. [[#Docetaxel_monotherapy_4|Docetaxel]]<br>3. [[#Doxorubicin_monotherapy_3|Doxorubicin]]<br>4. [[#Doxorubicin_non-pegylated_liposomal_monotherapy|NPLD]]<br>5. [[#Doxorubicin_pegylated_liposomal_monotherapy_2|PLD]]<br>6. [[#Gemcitabine_monotherapy_2|Gemcitabine]]<br>7. [[#nab-Paclitaxel_monotherapy_3|nab-Paclitaxel]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior PFS<br>Median PFS: 6.3 vs 4.2 mo<br>(HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61-0.93)
@@ Line 10,646: / Line 10,646: @@
 |[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(14)70439-5/fulltext von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)]
 |2011-2013
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |1. [[#Capecitabine_.26_Bevacizumab_3|Capecitabine & Bevacizumab]]<br>2. [[#Docetaxel_.26_Bevacizumab_3|Docetaxel & Bevacizumab]]<br>3. [[#Doxorubicin_.26_Bevacizumab|Doxorubicin & Bevacizumab]]<br>4. [[#Doxorubicin_non-pegylated_liposomal_.26_Bevacizumab|NPLD & Bevacizumab]]<br>5. [[#Doxorubicin_pegylated_liposomal_.26_Bevacizumab|PLD & Bevacizumab]]<br>6. [[#Gemcitabine_.26_Bevacizumab|Gemcitabine & Bevacizumab]]<br>7. [[#Paclitaxel.2C_nanoparticle_albumin-bound_.26_Bevacizumab_2|nab-Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab]]
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior PFS
@@ Line 10,676: / Line 10,676: @@
 |[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(14)70439-5/fulltext von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)]
 |2011-2013
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |1. [[#Capecitabine_monotherapy_3|Capecitabine]]<br>2. [[#Docetaxel_monotherapy_4|Docetaxel]]<br>3. [[#Doxorubicin_monotherapy_3|Doxorubicin]]<br>4. [[#Doxorubicin_non-pegylated_liposomal_monotherapy|NPLD]]<br>5. [[#Doxorubicin_pegylated_liposomal_monotherapy_2|PLD]]<br>6. [[#Gemcitabine_monotherapy_2|Gemcitabine]]<br>7. [[#nab-Paclitaxel_monotherapy_3|nab-Paclitaxel]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior PFS<br>Median PFS: 6.3 vs 4.2 mo<br>(HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61-0.93)
@@ Line 10,708: / Line 10,708: @@
 |[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(14)70439-5/fulltext von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)]
 |2011-2013
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |1. [[#Capecitabine_.26_Bevacizumab_3|Capecitabine & Bevacizumab]]<br>2. [[#Docetaxel_.26_Bevacizumab_3|Docetaxel & Bevacizumab]]<br>3. [[#Doxorubicin_.26_Bevacizumab|Doxorubicin & Bevacizumab]]<br>4. [[#Doxorubicin_non-pegylated_liposomal_.26_Bevacizumab|NPLD & Bevacizumab]]<br>5. [[#Doxorubicin_pegylated_liposomal_.26_Bevacizumab|PLD & Bevacizumab]]<br>6. [[#Gemcitabine_.26_Bevacizumab|Gemcitabine & Bevacizumab]]<br>7. [[#Paclitaxel.2C_nanoparticle_albumin-bound_.26_Bevacizumab_2|nab-Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab]]
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior PFS
@@ Line 10,729: / Line 10,729: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2004.08.157 Keller et al. 2004]
 |NR
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |1. Mitomycin & Vinblastine<br> 2. [[#Vinorelbine_monotherapy_2|Vinorelbine]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of PFS
@@ Line 10,735: / Line 10,735: @@
 |[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(14)70439-5/fulltext von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)]
 |2011-2013
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |1. [[#Capecitabine_.26_Bevacizumab_3|Capecitabine & Bevacizumab]]<br>2. [[#Docetaxel_.26_Bevacizumab_3|Docetaxel & Bevacizumab]]<br>3. [[#Doxorubicin_.26_Bevacizumab|Doxorubicin & Bevacizumab]]<br>4. [[#Doxorubicin_non-pegylated_liposomal_.26_Bevacizumab|NPLD & Bevacizumab]]<br>5. [[#Doxorubicin_pegylated_liposomal_.26_Bevacizumab|PLD & Bevacizumab]]<br>6. [[#Gemcitabine_.26_Bevacizumab|Gemcitabine & Bevacizumab]]<br>7. [[#Paclitaxel.2C_nanoparticle_albumin-bound_.26_Bevacizumab_2|nab-Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab]]
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior PFS
@@ Line 10,767: / Line 10,767: @@
 |[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(14)70439-5/fulltext von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)]
 |2011-2013
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |1. [[#Capecitabine_.26_Bevacizumab_3|Capecitabine & Bevacizumab]]<br>2. [[#Docetaxel_.26_Bevacizumab_3|Docetaxel & Bevacizumab]]<br>3. [[#Doxorubicin_.26_Bevacizumab|Doxorubicin & Bevacizumab]]<br>4. [[#Doxorubicin_non-pegylated_liposomal_.26_Bevacizumab|NPLD & Bevacizumab]]<br>5. [[#Doxorubicin_pegylated_liposomal_.26_Bevacizumab|PLD & Bevacizumab]]<br>6. [[#Gemcitabine_.26_Bevacizumab|Gemcitabine & Bevacizumab]]<br>7. [[#Paclitaxel.2C_nanoparticle_albumin-bound_.26_Bevacizumab_2|nab-Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab]]
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior PFS
@@ Line 10,788: / Line 10,788: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2004.08.157 Keller et al. 2004]
 |NR
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |1. Mitomycin & Vinblastine<br> 2. [[#Vinorelbine_monotherapy_2|Vinorelbine]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of PFS
@@ Line 10,794: / Line 10,794: @@
 |[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(14)70439-5/fulltext von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)]
 |2011-2013
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |1. [[#Capecitabine_.26_Bevacizumab_3|Capecitabine & Bevacizumab]]<br>2. [[#Docetaxel_.26_Bevacizumab_3|Docetaxel & Bevacizumab]]<br>3. [[#Doxorubicin_.26_Bevacizumab|Doxorubicin & Bevacizumab]]<br>4. [[#Doxorubicin_non-pegylated_liposomal_.26_Bevacizumab|NPLD & Bevacizumab]]<br>5. [[#Doxorubicin_pegylated_liposomal_.26_Bevacizumab|PLD & Bevacizumab]]<br>6. [[#Gemcitabine_.26_Bevacizumab|Gemcitabine & Bevacizumab]]<br>7. [[#Paclitaxel.2C_nanoparticle_albumin-bound_.26_Bevacizumab_2|nab-Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab]]
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior PFS
@@ Line 10,826: / Line 10,826: @@
 |[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(14)70439-5/fulltext von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)]
 |2011-2013
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |1. [[#Capecitabine_monotherapy_3|Capecitabine]]<br>2. [[#Docetaxel_monotherapy_4|Docetaxel]]<br>3. [[#Doxorubicin_monotherapy_3|Doxorubicin]]<br>4. [[#Doxorubicin_non-pegylated_liposomal_monotherapy|NPLD]]<br>5. [[#Doxorubicin_pegylated_liposomal_monotherapy_2|PLD]]<br>6. [[#Gemcitabine_monotherapy_2|Gemcitabine]]<br>7. [[#nab-Paclitaxel_monotherapy_3|nab-Paclitaxel]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior PFS<br>Median PFS: 6.3 vs 4.2 mo<br>(HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61-0.93)
@@ Line 10,849: / Line 10,849: @@
 |[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(14)70439-5/fulltext von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)]
 |2011-2013
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |1. [[#Capecitabine_monotherapy_3|Capecitabine]]<br>2. [[#Docetaxel_monotherapy_4|Docetaxel]]<br>3. [[#Doxorubicin_monotherapy_3|Doxorubicin]]<br>4. [[#Doxorubicin_non-pegylated_liposomal_monotherapy|NPLD]]<br>5. [[#Doxorubicin_pegylated_liposomal_monotherapy_2|PLD]]<br>6. [[#Gemcitabine_monotherapy_2|Gemcitabine]]<br>7. [[#nab-Paclitaxel_monotherapy_3|nab-Paclitaxel]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior PFS<br>Median PFS: 6.3 vs 4.2 mo<br>(HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61-0.93)
@@ Line 10,881: / Line 10,881: @@
 |[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2811%2960070-6/fulltext Cortes et al. 2011 (EMBRACE)]
 |2006-2008
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-RT-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-RT-switch-ic)
 |Investigator's choice
 | style="background-color:#91cf60" |Seems to have superior OS<br>Median OS: 13.1 vs 10.6 mo<br>(HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.66-0.99)
@@ Line 10,887: / Line 10,887: @@
 |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4463422/ Kaufman et al. 2015 (E7389-G000-301)]
 |2006-2009
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[#Capecitabine_monotherapy_3|Capecitabine]]
 | style="background-color:#91cf60" |Seems to have superior OS<br>Median OS: 15.9 vs. 14.5 mo<br>(HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.77-1.00)
@@ Line 10,893: / Line 10,893: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2019.02.002 Yuan et al. 2019 (E7389-C086-304)]
 |2013-2015
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[#Vinorelbine_monotherapy_2|Vinorelbine]]
 | style="background-color:#91cf60" |Seems to have superior PFS<br>Median PFS: 2.8 vs 2.8 mo<br>(HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.65-0.98)
@@ Line 10,941: / Line 10,941: @@
 |[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(14)70439-5/fulltext von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)]
 |2011-2013
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |1. [[#Capecitabine_.26_Bevacizumab_3|Capecitabine & Bevacizumab]]<br>2. [[#Docetaxel_.26_Bevacizumab_3|Docetaxel & Bevacizumab]]<br>3. [[#Doxorubicin_.26_Bevacizumab|Doxorubicin & Bevacizumab]]<br>4. [[#Doxorubicin_non-pegylated_liposomal_.26_Bevacizumab|NPLD & Bevacizumab]]<br>5. [[#Doxorubicin_pegylated_liposomal_.26_Bevacizumab|PLD & Bevacizumab]]<br>6. [[#Gemcitabine_.26_Bevacizumab|Gemcitabine & Bevacizumab]]<br>7. [[#Paclitaxel.2C_nanoparticle_albumin-bound_.26_Bevacizumab_2|nab-Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab]]
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior PFS
@@ Line 10,977: / Line 10,977: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.34.1255 Brufsky et al. 2011 (RIBBON-2)]
 |2006-2008
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |1. [[#Capecitabine_.26_Bevacizumab_3|Capecitabine & Bevacizumab]]<br> 2. [[#Docetaxel_.26_Bevacizumab_3|Docetaxel & Bevacizumab]]<br> 3. [[#Gemcitabine_.26_Bevacizumab|Gemcitabine & Bevacizumab]]<br> 4. [[#Paclitaxel_.26_Bevacizumab_2|Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab]]<br> 5. [[#Paclitaxel.2C_nanoparticle_albumin-bound_.26_Bevacizumab_2|nab-Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab]] <br> 6. [[#Vinorelbine_.26_Bevacizumab|Vinorelbine & Bevacizumab]]
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior PFS
@@ Line 10,983: / Line 10,983: @@
 |[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(14)70439-5/fulltext von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)]
 |2011-2013
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |1. [[#Capecitabine_.26_Bevacizumab_3|Capecitabine & Bevacizumab]]<br>2. [[#Docetaxel_.26_Bevacizumab_3|Docetaxel & Bevacizumab]]<br>3. [[#Doxorubicin_.26_Bevacizumab|Doxorubicin & Bevacizumab]]<br>4. [[#Doxorubicin_non-pegylated_liposomal_.26_Bevacizumab|NPLD & Bevacizumab]]<br>5. [[#Doxorubicin_pegylated_liposomal_.26_Bevacizumab|PLD & Bevacizumab]]<br>6. [[#Gemcitabine_.26_Bevacizumab|Gemcitabine & Bevacizumab]]<br>7. [[#Paclitaxel.2C_nanoparticle_albumin-bound_.26_Bevacizumab_2|nab-Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab]]
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior PFS
@@ Line 11,018: / Line 11,018: @@
 |[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(14)70439-5/fulltext von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)]
 |2011-2013
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |1. [[#Capecitabine_monotherapy_3|Capecitabine]]<br>2. [[#Docetaxel_monotherapy_4|Docetaxel]]<br>3. [[#Doxorubicin_monotherapy_3|Doxorubicin]]<br>4. [[#Doxorubicin_non-pegylated_liposomal_monotherapy|NPLD]]<br>5. [[#Doxorubicin_pegylated_liposomal_monotherapy_2|PLD]]<br>6. [[#Gemcitabine_monotherapy_2|Gemcitabine]]<br>7. [[#nab-Paclitaxel_monotherapy_3|nab-Paclitaxel]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior PFS<br>Median PFS: 6.3 vs 4.2 mo<br>(HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61-0.93)
@@ Line 11,040: / Line 11,040: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.34.1255 Brufsky et al. 2011 (RIBBON-2)]
 |2006-2008
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |1. [[#Capecitabine_monotherapy_3|Capecitabine]]<br> 2. [[#Docetaxel_monotherapy_4|Docetaxel]]<br> 3. [[#Gemcitabine_monotherapy_2|Gemcitabine]]<br> 4. [[#Paclitaxel_monotherapy.2C_weekly_4|Paclitaxel]]<br> 5. [[#nab-Paclitaxel_monotherapy_3|nab-Paclitaxel]]<br> 6. [[#Vinorelbine_monotherapy_2|Vinorelbine]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior PFS<br>Median PFS: 7.2 vs 5.1 mo<br>(HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.64-0.93)
@@ Line 11,046: / Line 11,046: @@
 |[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(14)70439-5/fulltext von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)]
 |2011-2013
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |1. [[#Capecitabine_monotherapy_3|Capecitabine]]<br>2. [[#Docetaxel_monotherapy_4|Docetaxel]]<br>3. [[#Doxorubicin_monotherapy_3|Doxorubicin]]<br>4. [[#Doxorubicin_non-pegylated_liposomal_monotherapy|NPLD]]<br>5. [[#Doxorubicin_pegylated_liposomal_monotherapy_2|PLD]]<br>6. [[#Gemcitabine_monotherapy_2|Gemcitabine]]<br>7. [[#nab-Paclitaxel_monotherapy_3|nab-Paclitaxel]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior PFS<br>Median PFS: 6.3 vs 4.2 mo<br>(HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61-0.93)
@@ Line 11,108: / Line 11,108: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2007.11.6699 Seidman et al. 2008 (CALGB 9840)]
 |1998-NR
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[#Paclitaxel_monotherapy.2C_q3wk_2|Paclitaxel q3wk]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior OS<br>Median OS: 24 vs 12 mo<br>(HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.65-0.94)
@@ Line 11,128: / Line 11,128: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.34.1255 Brufsky et al. 2011 (RIBBON-2)]
 |2006-2008
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |1. [[#Capecitabine_.26_Bevacizumab_3|Capecitabine & Bevacizumab]]<br> 2. [[#Docetaxel_.26_Bevacizumab_3|Docetaxel & Bevacizumab]]<br> 3. [[#Gemcitabine_.26_Bevacizumab|Gemcitabine & Bevacizumab]]<br> 4. [[#Paclitaxel_.26_Bevacizumab_2|Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab]]<br> 5. [[#Paclitaxel.2C_nanoparticle_albumin-bound_.26_Bevacizumab_2|nab-Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab]] <br> 6. [[#Vinorelbine_.26_Bevacizumab|Vinorelbine & Bevacizumab]]
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior PFS
@@ Line 11,160: / Line 11,160: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1996.14.6.1858 Nabholtz et al. 1996]
 |1992
-|style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-RT-de-esc)
+|style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-RT-de-esc)
 |[[#Paclitaxel_monotherapy.2C_q3wk_2|Paclitaxel]]; 175 mg/m<sup>2</sup> q3wk
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of ORR<sup>1</sup>
@@ Line 11,187: / Line 11,187: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1996.14.6.1858 Nabholtz et al. 1996]
 |1992
-|style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-RT-esc)
+|style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-RT-esc)
 |[[#Paclitaxel_monotherapy.2C_q3wk_2|Paclitaxel]]; 135 mg/m<sup>2</sup> q3wk
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of ORR<sup>1</sup>
@@ Line 11,193: / Line 11,193: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2004.08.048 Winer et al. 2004 (CALGB 9342)]
 |1994-1997
-|style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+|style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |1. [[#Paclitaxel_monotherapy.2C_q3wk_2|Paclitaxel]]; 210 mg/m<sup>2</sup> q3wk<br> 2. [[#Paclitaxel_monotherapy.2C_q3wk_2|Paclitaxel]]; 250 mg/m<sup>2</sup> q3wk
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of ORR
@@ Line 11,199: / Line 11,199: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.02.027 Jones et al. 2005 (TAX 311)]
 |1994-2001
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |[[#Docetaxel_monotherapy_4|Docetaxel]]
 | style="background-color:#fc8d59" |Seems to have inferior OS
@@ Line 11,205: / Line 11,205: @@
 |[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2361864/ Icli et al. 2005]
 |1997-2002
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |EoP
 | style="background-color:#fc8d59" |Seems to have inferior OS
@@ Line 11,211: / Line 11,211: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2007.11.6699 Seidman et al. 2008 (CALGB 9840)]
 |1998-NR
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Paclitaxel_monotherapy.2C_weekly_4|Weekly paclitaxel]]
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior OS
@@ Line 11,217: / Line 11,217: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2005.04.937 Gradishar et al. 2005 (CA012-0)]
 |2001-2002
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#nab-Paclitaxel_monotherapy_3|nab-Paclitaxel]]
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior TTP
@@ Line 11,223: / Line 11,223: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.34.1255 Brufsky et al. 2011 (RIBBON-2)]
 |2006-2008
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |1. [[#Capecitabine_.26_Bevacizumab_3|Capecitabine & Bevacizumab]]<br> 2. [[#Docetaxel_.26_Bevacizumab_3|Docetaxel & Bevacizumab]]<br> 3. [[#Gemcitabine_.26_Bevacizumab|Gemcitabine & Bevacizumab]]<br> 4. [[#Paclitaxel_.26_Bevacizumab_2|Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab]]<br> 5. [[#Paclitaxel.2C_nanoparticle_albumin-bound_.26_Bevacizumab_2|nab-Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab]] <br> 6. [[#Vinorelbine_.26_Bevacizumab|Vinorelbine & Bevacizumab]]
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior PFS
@@ Line 11,262: / Line 11,262: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.34.1255 Brufsky et al. 2011 (RIBBON-2)]
 |2006-2008
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |1. [[#Capecitabine_monotherapy_3|Capecitabine]]<br> 2. [[#Docetaxel_monotherapy_4|Docetaxel]]<br> 3. [[#Gemcitabine_monotherapy_2|Gemcitabine]]<br> 4. [[#Paclitaxel_monotherapy.2C_weekly_4|Paclitaxel]]<br> 5. [[#nab-Paclitaxel_monotherapy_3|nab-Paclitaxel]]<br> 6. [[#Vinorelbine_monotherapy_2|Vinorelbine]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior PFS<br>Median PFS: 7.2 vs 5.1 mo<br>(HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.64-0.93)
@@ Line 11,284: / Line 11,284: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.34.1255 Brufsky et al. 2011 (RIBBON-2)]
 |2006-2008
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |1. [[#Capecitabine_monotherapy_3|Capecitabine]]<br> 2. [[#Docetaxel_monotherapy_4|Docetaxel]]<br> 3. [[#Gemcitabine_monotherapy_2|Gemcitabine]]<br> 4. [[#Paclitaxel_monotherapy.2C_weekly_4|Paclitaxel]]<br> 5. [[#nab-Paclitaxel_monotherapy_3|nab-Paclitaxel]]<br> 6. [[#Vinorelbine_monotherapy_2|Vinorelbine]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior PFS<br>Median PFS: 7.2 vs 5.1 mo<br>(HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.64-0.93)
@@ Line 11,318: / Line 11,318: @@
 |[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(14)70439-5/fulltext von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)]
 |2011-2013
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |1. [[#Capecitabine_.26_Bevacizumab_3|Capecitabine & Bevacizumab]]<br>2. [[#Docetaxel_.26_Bevacizumab_3|Docetaxel & Bevacizumab]]<br>3. [[#Doxorubicin_.26_Bevacizumab|Doxorubicin & Bevacizumab]]<br>4. [[#Doxorubicin_non-pegylated_liposomal_.26_Bevacizumab|NPLD & Bevacizumab]]<br>5. [[#Doxorubicin_pegylated_liposomal_.26_Bevacizumab|PLD & Bevacizumab]]<br>6. [[#Gemcitabine_.26_Bevacizumab|Gemcitabine & Bevacizumab]]<br>7. [[#Paclitaxel.2C_nanoparticle_albumin-bound_.26_Bevacizumab_2|nab-Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab]]
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior PFS
@@ Line 11,339: / Line 11,339: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2005.04.937 Gradishar et al. 2005 (CA012-0)]
 |2001-2002
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-RT-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-RT-switch-ic)
 |[[#Paclitaxel_monotherapy.2C_q3wk_2|Paclitaxel]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior TTP<br>Median TTP: 23 vs 16.9 weeks<br>(HR 0.75)
@@ Line 11,345: / Line 11,345: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.34.1255 Brufsky et al. 2011 (RIBBON-2)]
 |2006-2008
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |1. [[#Capecitabine_.26_Bevacizumab_3|Capecitabine & Bevacizumab]]<br> 2. [[#Docetaxel_.26_Bevacizumab_3|Docetaxel & Bevacizumab]]<br> 3. [[#Gemcitabine_.26_Bevacizumab|Gemcitabine & Bevacizumab]]<br> 4. [[#Paclitaxel_.26_Bevacizumab_2|Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab]]<br> 5. [[#Paclitaxel.2C_nanoparticle_albumin-bound_.26_Bevacizumab_2|nab-Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab]] <br> 6. [[#Vinorelbine_.26_Bevacizumab|Vinorelbine & Bevacizumab]]
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior PFS
@@ Line 11,351: / Line 11,351: @@
 |[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(14)70439-5/fulltext von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)]
 |2011-2013
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |1. [[#Capecitabine_.26_Bevacizumab_3|Capecitabine & Bevacizumab]]<br>2. [[#Docetaxel_.26_Bevacizumab_3|Docetaxel & Bevacizumab]]<br>3. [[#Doxorubicin_.26_Bevacizumab|Doxorubicin & Bevacizumab]]<br>4. [[#Doxorubicin_non-pegylated_liposomal_.26_Bevacizumab|NPLD & Bevacizumab]]<br>5. [[#Doxorubicin_pegylated_liposomal_.26_Bevacizumab|PLD & Bevacizumab]]<br>6. [[#Gemcitabine_.26_Bevacizumab|Gemcitabine & Bevacizumab]]<br>7. [[#Paclitaxel.2C_nanoparticle_albumin-bound_.26_Bevacizumab_2|nab-Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab]]
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior PFS
@@ Line 11,407: / Line 11,407: @@
 |[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(14)70439-5/fulltext von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)]
 |2011-2013
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |1. [[#Capecitabine_monotherapy_3|Capecitabine]]<br>2. [[#Docetaxel_monotherapy_4|Docetaxel]]<br>3. [[#Doxorubicin_monotherapy_3|Doxorubicin]]<br>4. [[#Doxorubicin_non-pegylated_liposomal_monotherapy|NPLD]]<br>5. [[#Doxorubicin_pegylated_liposomal_monotherapy_2|PLD]]<br>6. [[#Gemcitabine_monotherapy_2|Gemcitabine]]<br>7. [[#nab-Paclitaxel_monotherapy_3|nab-Paclitaxel]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior PFS<br>Median PFS: 6.3 vs 4.2 mo<br>(HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61-0.93)
@@ Line 11,430: / Line 11,430: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.34.1255 Brufsky et al. 2011 (RIBBON-2)]
 |2006-2008
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |1. [[#Capecitabine_monotherapy_3|Capecitabine]]<br> 2. [[#Docetaxel_monotherapy_4|Docetaxel]]<br> 3. [[#Gemcitabine_monotherapy_2|Gemcitabine]]<br> 4. [[#Paclitaxel_monotherapy.2C_weekly_4|Paclitaxel]]<br> 5. [[#nab-Paclitaxel_monotherapy_3|nab-Paclitaxel]]<br> 6. [[#Vinorelbine_monotherapy_2|Vinorelbine]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior PFS<br>Median PFS: 7.2 vs 5.1 mo<br>(HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.64-0.93)
@@ Line 11,436: / Line 11,436: @@
 |[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(14)70439-5/fulltext von Minckwitz et al. 2014 (TANIA)]
 |2011-2013
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |1. [[#Capecitabine_monotherapy_3|Capecitabine]]<br>2. [[#Docetaxel_monotherapy_4|Docetaxel]]<br>3. [[#Doxorubicin_monotherapy_3|Doxorubicin]]<br>4. [[#Doxorubicin_non-pegylated_liposomal_monotherapy|NPLD]]<br>5. [[#Doxorubicin_pegylated_liposomal_monotherapy_2|PLD]]<br>6. [[#Gemcitabine_monotherapy_2|Gemcitabine]]<br>7. [[#nab-Paclitaxel_monotherapy_3|nab-Paclitaxel]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior PFS<br>Median PFS: 6.3 vs 4.2 mo<br>(HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61-0.93)
@@ Line 11,487: / Line 11,487: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2019.02.002 Yuan et al. 2019 (E7389-C086-304)]
 |2013-2015
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |[[#Eribulin_monotherapy|Eribulin]]
 | style="background-color:#fc8d59" |Seems to have inferior PFS
@@ Line 11,507: / Line 11,507: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1995.13.10.2567 Jones et al. 1995a]
 |1990-1992
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-switch-ic)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-switch-ic)
 |Melphalan
 | style="background-color:#91cf60" |Seems to have superior OS
@@ Line 11,513: / Line 11,513: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2004.08.157 Keller et al. 2004]
 |NR
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |1. Mitomycin & Vinblastine<br> 2. [[#Doxorubicin_pegylated_liposomal_monotherapy_2|PLD]]
 | style="background-color:#ffffbf" |Did not meet primary endpoint of PFS
@@ Line 11,533: / Line 11,533: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.34.1255 Brufsky et al. 2011 (RIBBON-2)]
 |2006-2008
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |1. [[#Capecitabine_.26_Bevacizumab_3|Capecitabine & Bevacizumab]]<br> 2. [[#Docetaxel_.26_Bevacizumab_3|Docetaxel & Bevacizumab]]<br> 3. [[#Gemcitabine_.26_Bevacizumab|Gemcitabine & Bevacizumab]]<br> 4. [[#Paclitaxel_.26_Bevacizumab_2|Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab]]<br> 5. [[#Paclitaxel.2C_nanoparticle_albumin-bound_.26_Bevacizumab_2|nab-Paclitaxel & Bevacizumab]] <br> 6. [[#Vinorelbine_.26_Bevacizumab|Vinorelbine & Bevacizumab]]
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior PFS
@@ Line 11,553: / Line 11,553: @@
 |[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(07)70041-4/fulltext Martín et al. 2007 (GEICAM 2000-04)]
 |2001-2005
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (C)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (C)
 |Gemcitabine & Vinorelbine
 | style="background-color:#d73027" |Inferior PFS
@@ Line 11,611: / Line 11,611: @@
 |[https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.34.1255 Brufsky et al. 2011 (RIBBON-2)]
 |2006-2008
-| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase III (E-esc)
+| style="background-color:#1a9851" |Phase 3 (E-esc)
 |1. [[#Capecitabine_monotherapy_3|Capecitabine]]<br> 2. [[#Docetaxel_monotherapy_4|Docetaxel]]<br> 3. [[#Gemcitabine_monotherapy_2|Gemcitabine]]<br> 4. [[#Paclitaxel_monotherapy.2C_weekly_4|Paclitaxel]]<br> 5. [[#nab-Paclitaxel_monotherapy_3|nab-Paclitaxel]]<br> 6. [[#Vinorelbine_monotherapy_2|Vinorelbine]]
 | style="background-color:#1a9850" |Superior PFS<br>Median PFS: 7.2 vs 5.1 mo<br>(HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.64-0.93)

Difference between revisions of "Breast cancer"

Revision as of 02:15, 16 December 2021

Guidelines

ASCO

Older

ASCO/CCO

ESMO

Older

ESO/ESMO

Older

EUSOMA/SIOG

Older

KSMO/ESMO

NCCN

St Gallen Breast Guidelines

Older

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy

AC-D

Protocol #1, 60/600/75

Chemotherapy, AC portion

Chemotherapy, T portion

Subsequent treatment

Protocol #2, 60/600/100

Chemotherapy, AC portion

Chemotherapy, T portion

Subsequent treatment

References

AC-T

Protocol

Chemotherapy, AC portion

Chemotherapy, T portion

Subsequent treatment

References

Capecitabine & Docetaxel (TX)

Regimen

Chemotherapy

Subsequent treatment

References

Cyclophosphamide & Doxorubicin (AC)

Regimen variant #1, 4 cycles

Preceding treatment

Chemotherapy

Subsequent treatment

Regimen variant #2, 6 cycles

Chemotherapy

Subsequent treatment

References

Cyclophosphamide & Doxorubicin (AC) & Bevacizumab

Regimen

Preceding treatment

Chemotherapy

Targeted therapy

Subsequent treatment

References

Dose-dense Cyclophosphamide & Doxorubicin (ddAC)

Regimen

Chemotherapy

Supportive medications

Subsequent treatment

References

Cyclophosphamide & Epirubicin (EC)

Regimen

Preceding treatment

Chemotherapy

Subsequent treatment

References

DI EC

Regimen

Chemotherapy

Subsequent treatment

References

Docetaxel & Epirubicin (DE)

Regimen variant #1, 3 cycles

Chemotherapy

Subsequent treatment

Regimen variant #2, 6 cycles

Chemotherapy

Subsequent treatment

References

Docetaxel monotherapy

Regimen variant #1, 75 mg/m² x 4

Regimen variant #2, 100 mg/m² x 3

Regimen variant #3, 100 mg/m² x 4

Regimen variant #1, docetaxel 75 mg/m²

Regimen variant #2, docetaxel 100 mg/m²

Regimen variant #1, 80 mg/m² weekly