| pathology | treatment | patient | Demonstrated benefit and harm | k | | | |
|---|
| advanced breast cancer (metastatic) | docetaxel | not classified | versus combination chemotherapy No demonstrated result for efficacy | 8 trials | meta-analysis | | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
|---|
| T1 vs T0 | | | | | T1 vs T0 | | | | | T1 vs T0 | | | | | T1 vs T0 | | | | | T1 vs T0 | | | | | T1 vs T0 | | | | | T1 vs T0 | | | | | T1 vs T0 | | | |
| Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
|---|
| 304 Study Group, 1999 | docetaxel 100 mg/m2 intravenously (i.v.) every 3 weeks (n=203) vs. mitomycin 12 mg/m2 i.v. every 6 weeks plus vinblastine 6 mg/m2 i.v. every 3 weeks (n=189) | patients with metastatic breast cancer progressing despite previous anthracycline-containing chemotherapy | open-label Sample size: 203/189 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Sjostrom, 1999 | Docetaxel at a dose of 100 mg/m2 every 3 weeks (n=143) vs. sequential methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil (n=139) | patients with advanced breast cancer who had failed previous anthracycline treatment | Sample size: 143/139 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | TXT Group, 2002 | docetaxel (100 mg m(-2)) every 3 weeks (n=-9) vs. 5-fluorouracil+vinorelbine: 5-fluorouracil (750 mg m(-2) per day continuous infusion) D1-5 plus vinorelbine (25 mg m(-2)) D1 and D5 of each 3-week cycle (n=-9) | patients with metastatic breast cancer after failure of neo/adjuvant or one line of palliative anthracycline-based chemotherapy | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Bontenbal, 2005 | AT (doxorubicin 50 mg/m(2) and docetaxel 75 mg/m2) (n=-9) vs. FAC (fluorouracil 500 mg/m2, doxorubicin 50 mg/m2, and cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m2); (n=-9) | first-line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer: | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Blohmer, 2010 | ED (epirubicin 75 mg/m(2) and docetaxel 75 mg/m(2)) (n=-9) vs. EC (epirubicin 90 mg/m(2) and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2)). (n=-9) | first-line therapy for women with metastatic breast cancer | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Bonneterre, 2004 | docetaxel 75 mg m(-2) plus epirubicin 75 mg m(-2) (n=-9) vs. 5-fluorouracil 500 mg m(-2) plus epirubicin 75 mg m(-2) and cyclophosphamide 500 mg m(-2) intravenously once every 3 weeks for up to eight cycles (n=-9) | | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | HERNATA, 2011 | docetaxel 100 mg/m(2) day 1 (n=-9) vs. vinorelbine 30 to 35 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 (n=-9) | first-line therapy of metastatic or locally advanced human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast cancer | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | JCOG, 2005 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | first-line chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
| advanced breast cancer (metastatic) | docetaxel | not classified | versus Every three weeks regimen No demonstrated result for efficacy | 4 trials | meta-analysis | | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
|---|
| Rivera , 2008 | Weekly Docetaxel vs Every three weeks Docetaxel | | | | | Tabernero , 2004 | Weekly Docetaxel vs Every three weeks Docetaxel | | | | | Sedky , 2002 | Weekly Docetaxel vs Every three weeks Docetaxel | | | | | Willemse , 2007 | Weekly Docetaxel vs Every three weeks Docetaxel | | | |
| Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
|---|
| Rivera , 2008 | Weekly Docetaxel 35–40 mg/m2 (n=-9) vs. Every three weeks Docetaxel 75–100 mg/m2 (n=-9) | Metastatic patients with metastatic breast cancer | open Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Tabernero , 2004 | Weekly Docetaxel 40 mg/m2 (n=-9) vs. Every three weeks Docetaxel 100 mg/m2 (n=-9) | Metastatic | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Sedky , 2002 | Weekly Docetaxel 35 mg/m2 (n=-9) vs. Every three weeks Docetaxel 100 mg/m2 (n=-9) | Metastatic | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Willemse , 2007 | Weekly Docetaxel 36 mg/m2 (n=-9) vs. Every three weeks Docetaxel 100 mg/m2 (n=-9) | Metastatic | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
| advanced breast cancer (metastatic) | nab-paclitaxel | not classified | versus single-agent chemotherapy No demonstrated result for efficacy | 2 trials | meta-analysis | | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
|---|
| T1 vs T0 | | | | | T1 vs T0 | | | |
| Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
|---|
| Gradishar, 2009 | weekly and every 3 week (q3w) nab-paclitaxel (n=302) vs. docetaxel (n=0) | first-line treatment in patients with MBC | Sample size: 302/0 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Roy, 2008 | weekly nab (nanoparticle albumin-bound)-paclitaxel in combination with gemcitabine (n=50) vs. (n=0) | patients with previously untreated metastatic breast cancer | Sample size: 50/0 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
| advanced breast cancer (metastatic) | paclitaxel | not classified | versus combination chemotherapy No demonstrated result for efficacy | 5 trials | meta-analysis | | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
|---|
| T1 vs T0 | | | | | T1 vs T0 | | | | | T1 vs T0 | | | | | T1 vs T0 | | | | | T1 vs T0 | | | |
| Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
|---|
| Jassem, 2001 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | first-line therapy for women with metastatic breast cancer | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | ANZ TITG, 1999 | paclitaxel 200 mg/m(2) intravenously (IV) over 3 hours for eight cycles (24 weeks) (n=-9) vs. standard cyclophosphamide 100 mg/m(2)/d orally on days 1 to 14, methotrexate 40 mg/m(2) IV on days 1 and 8, fluorouracil 600 mg/m(2) IV on days 1 and 8, and prednisone 40 mg/m(2)/d orally on days 1 to 14 (CMFP) for six cycles (24 weeks) with epirubicin re (n=-9) | front-line therapy in untreated metastatic breast cancer | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | TOG, 2005 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | CECOG BM1, 2005 | gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m(2), days 1 and 4), epirubicin (90 mg/m(2), day 1), and paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2), day 1) (n=-9) vs. FU (500 mg/m(2), day 1), epirubicin (90 mg/m(2), day 1), and cyclophosphamide (500 mg/m(2), day 1) (n=-9) | first-line chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | UKCCCR AB01, 1997 | EP (epirubicin 75 mg/m2 and paclitaxel 200 mg/m2) (n=-9) vs. EC (epirubicin 75 mg/m2 and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2) administered intravenously every 3 weeks for a maximum of six cycles (n=-9) | first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
| advanced breast cancer (metastatic) | paclitaxel | not classified | versus Every three weeks regimen No demonstrated result for efficacy Weekly Paclitaxel inferior to Every three weeks Paclitaxel in terms of overall response in Frasci , 2005 Weekly Paclitaxel inferior to Every three weeks Paclitaxel in terms of progression free survival in Sikov , 2002 | 7 trials | meta-analysis | | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
|---|
| CLGB 9840 (Seidman), 2008 | Weekly Paclitaxel vs Every three weeks Paclitaxel | overall survival 0.78 [0.65; 0.94] progression free survival 0.74 [0.63; 0.86] | | overall response 1.19 [0.96; 1.48] | | Gradishar , 2009 | Weekly Paclitaxel vs Every three weeks Docetaxel | | | overall response 1.27 [0.90; 1.79] | | Fountzilas , 2008 | Weekly Paclitaxel vs Every three weeks Docetaxel | | | overall response 1.29 [0.98; 1.69] overall survival 0.72 [0.50; 1.04] progression free survival 1.04 [0.78; 1.39] | | Frasci , 2006 | Weekly Paclitaxel vs Every three weeks Paclitaxel | | | overall response 1.13 [0.99; 1.28] overall survival 0.60 [0.34; 1.05] progression free survival 0.99 [0.62; 1.59] | | Frasci , 2005 | Weekly Paclitaxel vs Every three weeks Paclitaxel | | overall response 1.61 [1.18; 2.19] | overall survival 0.79 [0.46; 1.34] progression free survival 1.09 [0.73; 1.63] | | Sikov , 2002 | Weekly Paclitaxel vs Every three weeks Paclitaxel | | progression free survival 1.67 [1.05; 2.65] | overall response 0.99 [0.72; 1.36] overall survival 0.98 [0.62; 1.55] | | Khoo , 2006 | split dose vs Every three weeks Paclitaxel | | | overall response 1.07 [0.77; 1.49] progression free survival 1.04 [0.70; 1.54] |
| Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
|---|
| CLGB 9840 (Seidman), 2008 | Weekly Paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 (n=-9) vs. Every three weeks Paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 (n=-9) | Metastatic | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Gradishar , 2009 | Weekly Nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m2 (n=-9) vs. Every three weeks Docetaxel 100 mg/m2 (n=-9) | Metastatic | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Fountzilas , 2008 | Weekly Paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 (n=-9) vs. Every three weeks Gemc. Docetaxel 75 mg/m2 (n=-9) | Metastatic | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: overall survival FU duration: | | Frasci , 2006 | Weekly Epi CDDP Paclitaxel 120 mg/m2 (n=-9) vs. Every three weeks Epi Paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 (n=-9) | LABC | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Frasci , 2005 | Weekly Epi CDDP Paclitaxel 120 mg/m2 (n=-9) vs. Every three weeks Epi Paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 (n=-9) | Metastatic | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Sikov , 2002 | Weekly Paclitaxel 150 mg/m2 (n=-9) vs. Split D1,8 every three weeks Paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 (n=-9) | Metastatic | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Khoo , 2006 | split-dose paclitaxel or docetaxel in combination with gemcitabine (n=-9) vs. Every three weeks Gemc. Paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 (n=-9) | Metastatic patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) who had previously received anthracyclines | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
| advanced breast cancer (metastatic) | paclitaxel | not classified | versus single-agent chemotherapy No demonstrated result for efficacy | 4 trials | meta-analysis | | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
|---|
| T1 vs T0 | | | | | T1 vs T0 | | | | | T1 vs T0 | | | | | T1 vs T0 | | | |
| Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
|---|
| Dieras, 1995 | paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 given as a 3-hour infusion every 3 weeks (n=-9) vs. mitomycin 12 mg/m2 given as an intravenous infusion every 6 weeks (n=-9) | advanced breast cancer | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | ECOG E1193 (B), 2003 | paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2)/24 h), (n=-9) vs. doxorubicin (60 mg/m(2)), (n=-9) | patients with metastatic breast cancer | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | EORTC 10923, 2000 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | first-line therapy of advanced breast cancer | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: progression-free survival FU duration: | | Talbot, 2002 | i.v. paclitaxel (175 mg m(-2), (n=-9) vs. 3-week cycles of intermittent oral capecitabine (1255 mg m(-2) twice daily, days 1-14, (n=-9) | | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
| lung cancer (metastatic) | docetaxel | not classified | versus No demonstrated result for efficacy | 9 trials | meta-analysis | | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
|---|
| DISTAl 01 (Gridelli) , 2004 | weekly docetaxel vs 3-weekly docetaxel | | | | | Camps | weekly docetaxel vs 3-weekly docetaxel | | | | | Schuette | weekly docetaxel vs 3-weekly docetaxel | | | | | Gervais | weekly docetaxel vs 3-weekly docetaxel | | | | | Lai | weekly docetaxel vs 3-weekly docetaxel | | | | | Chen | weekly docetaxel vs 3-weekly docetaxel | | | | | TAX 317 (Shepherd) 100mg/m2, 2000 | docetaxel vs | | | | | TAX 320 100mg/m2, 2000 | docetaxel vs | | | | | Esteban, 2003 | paclitaxel 80mg/m2 vs m2docetaxel 36 mg/ | | | |
| Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
|---|
| DISTAl 01 (Gridelli) , 2004 | (n=220) vs. (n=0) | patients with advanced NSCLC patients, < or =75 years, ECOG PS < or =2 | Sample size: 220/0 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Camps | docetaxel 36 mg/m(2) given weekly (1W arm) for 6 weeks followed by 2 weeks of rest (n=-9) vs. docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) administered every 3 weeks (n=-9) | | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Schuette | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Gervais | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Lai | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Chen | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | TAX 317 (Shepherd) 100mg/m2, 2000 | docetaxel 100 mg/m(2) (n=-9) vs. best supportive care (n=-9) 3 arms: docetaxel 100 mg/m(2), 75 mg/m(2), best supportive care | Patients with performance statuses of 0 to 2 and stage IIIB/IV non-small-cell lung cancer | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | TAX 320 100mg/m2, 2000 | docetaxel 100 mg/m(2) (D100) or 75 mg/m(2) (D75) (n=373) vs. control regimen of vinorelbine or ifosfamide (n=0) 3 arms : docetaxel 100 mg/m(2) (D100), docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) (D75), control | patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer who had previously failed platinum-containing chemotherapy | Sample size: 373/0 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Esteban, 2003 | paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 as a 1 h weekly infusion for 6 weeks
followed by a 2-week rest (n=36) vs. docetaxel 36 mg/m2 as a 1 h weekly infusion for 6 weeks
followed by a 2-week rest. (n=35) | patients with NSCLC previously treated with platinum-based
chemotherapy | Sample size: 36/35 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
