Skip Navigation

JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2003 95(4):254; doi:10.1093/jnci/95.4.254-a
© 2003 by Oxford University Press
This Article
Right arrow Extract Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 95, No. 4, 254, February 19, 2003
© 2003 Oxford University Press

NEWS

Design of CALGB 9741

The CALGB 9741 trial tested both sequential versus concurrent chemotherapy administration and a conventional dosing interval versus a dose-dense interval. 2,005 women were randomly assigned to one of four arms:

• Arm 1: Ax4->Tx4->Cx4 q 3 weeks (conventional interval, sequential administration)

• Arm 2: Ax4->Tx4->Cx4 q 2 weeks with filgrastim (dose-dense interval, sequential administration)

• Arm 3: ACx4->Tx4 q 3 weeks (conventional interval, concurrent administration)

• Arm 4: ACx4->Tx4 q 2 weeks with filgrastim (dose-dense interval, sequential administration)

A = 60mg/m2 doxorubicin, T = 175 mg/m2 paclitaxel over 3 hours, and C = 600mg/m2 cyclophosphamide. Tamoxifen was given after chemotherapy. The median age of the patients was 50 years old. the median number of positive nodes was 3, and 10 or more nodes were present in 12% of patients. About 67% of the patients were estrogen receptor-positive.

Source: Citron M, Berry D, Cirrincione C, Carpenter J, Hudis C, Gradishar W, et al. Superiority of dose-dense (DD) over conventional scheduling (CS) and equivalence of sequential (SC) vs. combination adjuvant chemotherapy (CC) for node-positive breast cancer (CALGB 9741, INT C9741) [abstract]. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2002;76:Suppl 1. Abstract 15.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?



This Article
Right arrow Extract Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?