High coexpression of both insulin-like growth factor receptor-1 (IGFR-1) and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) is associated with shorter disease-free survival in resected non-small-cell lung cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Insulin-like growth factor receptor-1 (IGFR-1) represents a novel molecular target in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). IGFR-1 and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) activation is essential to mediate tumor cell survival, proliferation and invasion. We explored the correlation between IGFR-1 and EGFR, their relationship with clinicopathological parameters and their impact on outcome in resected stage I-III NSCLC patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Tumors from 125 surgical NSCLC patients were evaluated for IGFR-1 and EGFR expression by immunohistochemistry. Kaplan-Meier estimates of survival and time to recurrence were calculated for clinical variables and biologic markers using the Cox model for multivariate analysis. RESULTS: IGFR-1 protein overexpression was detected in 36.0% of NSCLC patients and was associated with larger tumor size (P = 0.04) but not with other clinical or biological characteristics. EGFR protein overexpression was observed in 55.2% of NSCLC, more frequently in squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) than non-SCC (63.7% versus 36.3%, chi(2) = 9.8, P = 0.001). IGFR-1 protein expression was associated with EGFR protein expression (P = 0.03). At the multivariate analysis, high coexpression of both IGFR-1 and EGFR was a significant prognostic factor of worse disease-free survival (DFS) (hazard ratio 2.51, P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: A statistically significant association was observed between high coexpression of both IGFR-1 and EGFR and worse DFS in early NSCLC patients.

Serum level changes of matrix metalloproteinases 2 and 9, vascular endothelial growth factor and epidermal growth factor receptor during platinum-based chemotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients.

PURPOSE: To evaluate serum changes of matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) 2 and 9, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) levels in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and their association with main clinicopathological parameters during chemotherapy with cisplatin and gemcitabine. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this prospective study, consecutive patients with stage III and IV NSCLC were enrolled. Serum MMP2 and 9, VEGF and EGFR levels were monitored in blood samples taken on day 1 of starting chemotherapy (baseline 1st), and after 3 cycles of chemotherapy (2nd) using commercial sandwich ELISA method. RESULTS: 116 patients were evaluated. Males / females 100 / 6, ECOG performance status (PS) 0/1/2: 47/65/4, stage III / IV: 49/67, squamous /adeno/large cell carcinoma 41/31/19. Forty-two (36%) patients achieved partial response (PR), 32 (28%) stable disease (SD) and 42 (36%) showed progressive disease (PD). Mean serum values -/+ standard deviation (SD) of the analyzed markers at baseline/at response evaluation were: EGFR 86 -/+ 87/96 -/+ 47 fmol/ml; MMP9 236 -/+ 156/162 -/+ 133 ng/ml ; MMP2 525 -/+ 189/569 -/+ 201 ng/ml; VEGF 555 -/+ 476/599 -/+ 611 pg/ml; VEGF adjusted for platelets (PLT) 1.9 -/+ 1.45/2.4 -/+ 2.78 pg/10(6). In logistic regression model for response rate adjusted for stage, the increase in MMP9 levels during chemotherapy (mean = 74 ng/ml -/+ SD 140) was predictive for progression (p=0.041) with 5% increase in the odds of progression for an increase of 10 ng. CONCLUSION: MMP9 level increase was found to be predictive of disease progression. EGFR levels could refl ect extracellular domain (ECD) loss from resistant cells and its shedding into the circulation.

Prevention of cisplatin-induced emesis: a double-blind multicenter randomized crossover study comparing ondansetron and ondansetron plus dexamethasone.

Ondansetron (OND) is a new 5-HT3 receptor antagonist that give complete protection from emesis/nausea in approximately 50% of cisplatin (CDDP)-treated patients. To evaluate if dexamethasone (DEX) added to OND increases antiemetic efficacy, we carried out a double-blind randomized crossover study to compare the antiemetic activity of OND with OND plus DEX. One hundred two chemotherapy-naive patients (44 women and 58 men) scheduled to receive CDDP chemotherapy at doses greater than or equal to 50 mg/m2 entered the study. Eighty-nine patients completed both cycles with the following results: complete protection from emesis/nausea was obtained in 57/59 patients (64.0%/66.3%) with OND and in 81/79 (91.0%/88.8%) with OND plus DEX (P = .0005/P = .0021). At the end of the study, 53% of the patients expressed a treatment preference, and of these, 74% chose OND plus DEX compared with 26% who preferred OND alone, a statistically significant difference (P less than .003). Side effects were very mild and not significantly different between the two treatments. We conclude that OND plus DEX is more efficacious than OND in protecting patients from CDDP-induced emesis and nausea.

Antiemetic activity of high doses of metoclopramide combined with methylprednisolone versus metoclopramide alone in cisplatin-treated cancer patients: a randomized double-blind trial of the Italian Oncology Group for Clinical Research.

We designed a multicenter, double-blind randomized study to determine the safety and antiemetic effectiveness of intravenous (IV) methylprednisolone (P) combined with high-dose IV metoclopramide (MTC) v MTC alone in 200 untreated cancer patients receiving cisplatin chemotherapy. One hundred eighty-five patients were evaluable for treatment efficacy. MTC plus P was significantly superior to MTC alone in reducing the number and length of vomiting episodes (P = .001 and P = .0008, respectively) and the maximal intensity of nausea (P = .0124 with a score system; P = .0155 with a linear analogue scale) and length of nausea (P = .0056). The subgroup with a major incidence of nausea and vomiting was women, especially young women, outpatients, and those treated with higher doses of cisplatin. Side effects were low and equally distributed between the two treatment groups. We conclude that MTC plus P has greater antiemetic activity than MTC alone in patients receiving cisplatin chemotherapy.

Protection from nausea and vomiting in cisplatin-treated patients: high-dose metoclopramide combined with methylprednisolone versus metoclopramide combined with dexamethasone and diphenhydramine: a study of the Italian Oncology Group for Clinical Research.

Despite treatment, emesis remains a major problem with cisplatin (CDDP) chemotherapy. Reasons for variability in antiemetic response among patients and in subsequent cycles are largely unknown and toxicity is sometimes severe. We have, therefore, carried out a multicenter, double-blind randomized trial comparing a combination of high-dose metoclopramide (MTC) (1 mg/kg x 4) and methylprednisolone (P) (treatment A) with a shorter but higher single-dose schedule of metoclopramide (3 mg/kg x 2) combined with dexamethasone (DEX) and diphenhydramine (DIP) to prevent extrapyramidal reactions (treatment B). Three hundred sixty-seven consecutive patients treated with various chemotherapy combinations containing CDDP were studied. Complete protection from vomiting/nausea was, at first cycle, 72.5%/79.5% with treatment B and 55.8%/65.1% with treatment A, a statistically significant difference (P less than .002/P less than .005). In subsequent cycles, protection from emesis significantly decreased with no difference between the two treatments. Multifactorial analysis shows that women, younger patients, outpatients, and patients who experienced emesis in previous cycles were at higher risk of suffering nausea and/or vomiting. Both regimens were well tolerated, but patients treated with treatment B had significantly less extrapyramidal reactions (1.7%/6.1%, P = .053). Treatment B is preferred due to its greater efficacy and lower incidence of extrapyramidal reactions. Trials on antiemetic therapy should take into account the important variables able to influence the efficacy of treatment. There is still a need for improving prevention of emesis in CDDP-treated patients.

Gemcitabine as second-line treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A phase II trial.

PURPOSE: To investigate the activity and toxicity of gemcitabine as a single agent in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after recurrence or failure of previous treatment with a platinum-containing regimen. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From November 1995 to October 1997, 83 patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC received gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) once a week for 3 weeks every 28 days. Responses were assessed every two treatment courses. The median age of the patients was 63 years; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status was 0 to 1 in 62 patients and 2 in 21 patients. The predominant histology was squamous (39 patients); 49 patients had stage IV disease and 34 patients had stage III disease (33 stage IIIB and one stage IIIA). RESULTS: Sixteen patients (19%) achieved a partial response to treatment; the median duration of response was 29 weeks (range, 6 to 50 weeks). Treatment was well tolerated: grade 2 to 3 (World Health Organization standardized response criteria) leukopenia and thrombocytopenia occurred in 23% and 20% of patients, respectively. Mild asthenia was observed in 16% of patients, and peripheral edema in 5% of patients. Nausea and vomiting were present in 16% of patients. CONCLUSION: In this experience, gemcitabine showed significant activity without relevant toxicity, mainly in patients who were previously responsive to chemotherapy. This suggests a possible role for gemcitabine as a second-line treatment in patients who had a previous response or achieved stable disease with a platinum-containing regimen.

Cisplatin-gemcitabine combination in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase II study.

PURPOSE: The nucleoside analog, gemcitabine, has shown activity as a single agent in the treatment of metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Its combination with cisplatin in preclinical models suggested synergy between the two drugs. The aim of the study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy and toxicity of the cisplatin-gemcitabine combination in advanced NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-eight consecutive previously untreated NSCLC patients entered the trial from January to June 1994. The median age was 60 years (range, 37 to 70) and performance status (PS) was 0 or 1; 22 patients had unresectable stage III disease (21 stage IIIB and one stage IIIA) and 26 had stage IV disease. Gemcitabine 1 g/m2 was administered weekly (days 1, 8, and 15) followed by a 1-week rest and cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on day 2 of each 28-day cycle. Survival and response were determined in accordance with the intention-to-treat principle in all enrolled patients. RESULTS: Of 48 assessable patients, one (stage IV) had a complete response (CR) and 25 achieved a partial response (PR). The overall response rate was 54% (95% confidence interval [CI], 40% to 68%). Thrombocytopenia was the main side effect, with 52% of patients experiencing grade III to IV toxicity, which was usually short-lived and responsible for the omission of gemcitabine administration on day 15 in 50% of chemotherapy courses. The median survival time was 61.5 weeks (95% CI, 40 to 71). CONCLUSION: The combination of gemcitabine and cisplatin induced a high response rate in both stage IIIB and IV NSCLC, with modest side effects. The regimen deserves further careful evaluation in a phase III prospective randomized trial.

Gemcitabine and cisplatin versus mitomycin, ifosfamide, and cisplatin in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A randomized phase III study of the Italian Lung Cancer Project.

PURPOSE: To compare gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) with mitomycin, ifosfamide, and cisplatin (MIC) chemotherapy in patients with stage IIIB (limited to T4 for pleural effusion and N3 for supraclavicular lymph nodes) or stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The end points were the evaluation of quality of life (QoL), response rates, survival, and toxicity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three hundred seven patients were randomized to receive either gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15 plus cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 2, every 28 days, or mitomycin 6 mg/m(2), ifosfamide 3,000 mg/m(2), and mesna on day 1 plus cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 2, every 28 days. The whole-blood cell count was repeated on day 1 in both arms and weekly in the GC arm before each gemcitabine administration. RESULTS: No major differences in changes in QoL were observed between the two treatment arms. The objective response rate was 38% in the GC arm compared with 26% in the MIC arm (P =.029). The median survival time was 8.6 months in the GC arm and 9.6 months in the MIC arm (P =.877, log-rank test). Grade 3 and 4 thrombocytopenia was significantly worse in the GC arm (64% v 28%, P <.001), whereas grade 3 and 4 alopecia was reported more commonly in the MIC arm (39% v 12%, P <. 001). CONCLUSION: We report an increased response rate without changes in QoL and a similar overall survival, time to progression, and time to treatment failure for the GC when compared with the MIC regimen in the treatment of advanced NSCLC.

Phase III randomized trial comparing three platinum-based doublets in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether two commonly used newer platinum-based regimens offer any advantage over vinorelbine-cisplatin (reference regimen) in response rate for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-naive patients were randomized to receive gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m(2) days 1 and 8 plus cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) day 2 every 21 days (GC arm), or paclitaxel 225 mg/m(2) (3-hour infusion) then carboplatin (area under the concentration-time curve of 6 mg/mL x min), both on day 1 every 21 days (PCb arm), or vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2)/wk for 12 weeks then every other week plus cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) day 1 every 28 days (VC arm). RESULTS: Six hundred twelve patients were randomized to treatment (205 GC, 204 PCb, and 203 VC). Overall response rates for the GC (30%) and PCb (32%) arms were not significantly different from that of the VC arm (30%). There were no differences in overall survival, time to disease progression, or time to treatment failure. Median survival for the GC, PCb, and VC groups was 9.8, 9.9, and 9.5 months, respectively. Neutropenia was significantly higher on the VC arm (GC 17% or PCb 35% v VC 43% of cycles, P <.001), as was thrombocytopenia on the GC arm (GC 16% v VC 0.1% of cycles, P <.001). Alopecia and peripheral neurotoxicity were most common on the PCb arm, as was nausea/vomiting on the VC arm (P <.05). CONCLUSION: Efficacy end points were not significantly different between experimental and reference arms, although toxicities showed differences. These findings suggest that chemotherapy in NSCLC has reached a therapeutic plateau.

Cost-minimisation analysis comparing gemcitabine/cisplatin, paclitaxel/carboplatin and vinorelbine/cisplatin in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer in Italy.

A retrospective cost-minimisation analysis was conducted comparing novel chemotherapies for the treatment of chemo-naive patients with locally advanced, recurrent, and/or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Resource use information was obtained from a Phase III randomised trial investigating the efficacy and toxicity of gemcitabine/cisplatin (Gem/Cis), paclitaxel/carboplatin (Pac/Carbo) and vinorelbine/cisplatin (Vin/Cis) combination regimens in 612 patients with advanced NSCLC. Since there were no statistically significant differences between the three treatments in terms of progression-free or overall survival in this trial, a cost-minimisation analysis was considered to be the appropriate type of economic evaluation. The perspective was that of the national healthcare provider in Italy. Medical resource use was obtained from the clinical trial database, from which mean cost streams were calculated for each treatment group. The mean total treatment costs per patient were 8094 euros, 11,203 euros and 9320 euros for the Gem/Cis, Pac/Carbo and Vin/Cis regimens, respectively. Based on resource consumption in a clinical trial, Gem/Cis had the lowest overall mean costs of the three chemotherapy regimens. Gem/Cis therefore has the potential to save costs in the treatment of advanced NSCLC in Italy.

Ondansetron plus dexamethasone: an effective combination in high-dose cisplatin therapy. The Italian Oncology Group for Clinical Research.

Ondansetron as a single agent has been shown to be superior to metoclopramide in the control of acute nausea and vomiting induced by high-dose cisplatin, complete or major control (0-2 emetic episodes) being achieved in 65-75% of patients. In an attempt to further improve efficacy in this group of patients, a randomised, double-blind, crossover study was carried out comparing ondansetron with ondansetron plus dexamethasone. Ondansetron was given as three intravenous doses (0.15 mg/kg) 2-hourly and dexamethasone as a single intravenous dose of 20 mg prior to cisplatin (median 70 mg/m2, range 50-120 mg/m2). Complete control of emesis was achieved in 91% of patients receiving the combination of ondansetron plus dexamethasone and in 64% of patients receiving ondansetron alone (P less than 0.001). Nausea was absent in 89% of patients receiving the combination and in 66% of patients receiving ondansetron alone (P less than 0.0025). Both treatments were well tolerated. The addition of a single dose of dexamethasone to ondansetron significantly improves the control of emesis and nausea compared to ondansetron monotherapy in patients receiving high-dose cisplatin.

Combination therapy with gemcitabine in non-small cell lung cancer.

The nucleoside analogue, gemcitabine, has shown activity as a single agent in the treatment of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), producing consistent response rates of 20% and above. Because of its unique mechanism of action and its non-overlapping toxicity with other active agents, gemcitabine is an attractive candidate for trials in combination with other cytotoxic agents. In preclinical models, the cisplatin-gemcitabine combination suggested synergy between the two drugs. In phase I-II studies, response rates are as high as 54% when gemcitabine is combined with cisplatin, both in stage III and IV NSCLC. The combination of gemcitabine and ifosfamide is also being explored with an overall response rate of 32%. The gemcitabine-containing regimens showed a favourable safety-efficacy profile and compared well with standard regimens used in NSCLC. These preliminary results must be validated by large randomised trials comparing gemcitabine-containing regimens with NSCLC reference chemotherapy regimens.

5-HT3 receptor antagonists: differences and similarities.

Differences among 5-HT3 receptor antagonists have been reported in pharmacological studies with regard to selectivity of receptor binding, potency, duration of action and dose-response curves. However, whether these pharmacological differences can affect clinical efficacy and safety remains to be determined. A careful analysis of the literature revealed 22 comparative studies among the 5-HT3 receptor antagonists available for review. Unfortunately, several of these trials have some important shortcomings especially in the study design, the size of population studied and the type of anti-emetic treatment selected, making their conclusions often difficult to interpret. However, among these studies, seven large, double-blind clinical trials have clearly shown that the antiemetic activity and tolerability of ondansetron, granisetron, tropisetron and dolasetron is almost identical at least in the prevention of cisplatin-induced emesis. Therefore, from the efficacy and safety point of view, there is no reason to prefer one with respect to the other compound. From the economic perspective, instead, differences may exist and they are strictly related to the dose and schedule of administration chosen for each compound. The information available on the use of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists in the prevention of emesis induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy is at best scant. Contrasting results have been reported and only one well-conducted study has been published in full. Therefore, the possible differences among the various compounds are difficult to evaluate. More studies should be carried out in this group of patients.

Ondansetron.

Ondansetron is the first selective antagonist of the 5-hydroxytryptamine receptors (type 3) marketed for the prevention of emesis induced by antineoplastic agents. Ondansetron has been shown to be more active and less toxic than high-dose metoclopramide in patients submitted to cisplatin chemotherapy. Furthermore, when dexamethasone was added to ondansetron, its antiemetic efficacy increased significantly. In the prevention of emesis induced by a high single dose of cisplatin or by repeated low doses, ondansetron combined with dexamethasone has been shown to be the more efficacious and less toxic antiemetic treatment. However, in the prevention of delayed emesis from cisplatin, its role is still to be defined. In patients submitted to moderately emetogenic chemotherapeutic agents, ondansetron has shown an efficacy superior or equal to standard doses of metoclopramide, but is less toxic. Moreover, when compared with dexamethasone, its antiemetic efficacy and tolerability is similar; in this group of patients ondansetron should be used only when steroids fail. Ondansetron toxicity is generally mild; in particular, it does not induce extrapyramidal reactions. The most frequent side-effects are headache and constipation.

Reliability and validity of a quality of life questionnaire in cancer patients.

Two studies were sequentially conducted to validate a new questionnaire which takes into consideration the most important variables which could influence quality of life evaluation. Particular attention was given to the methodology employed to collect data and to the patients' characteristics. In the first study 80 consecutive cancer patients were randomised to twice fill in one of four different types of questionnaire, each one characterised by a different polarisation of semantic and syntactic extreme values of the visual linear analogue (for instance, "very much" always on the right, regardless of the semantic value of the answer; positive semantic value always on the right, regardless of whether it was "very much" or "not at all"; and so on). The second study, conducted on 60 lung cancer patients, consisted in testing the reliability (by measuring the reproducibility in different ways) and the validity (by performing a factor analysis) of the type of questionnaire indicated by the first study as the most reliable. The internal coherence was also evaluated by measuring the effects of physical and psychological conditions on the responses.

Double-blind crossover trial of single vs. divided dose of metoclopramide in a combined regimen for treatment of cisplatin-induced emesis.

In a double-blind crossover antiemetic study in cisplatin-treated cancer patients, metoclopramide 4 mg/kg as a single intravenous dose (regimen A) was compared with 3 mg/kg in two doses (regimen B). In both regimens, metoclopramide was combined with dexamethasone and diphenhydramine. 65 consecutive, chemotherapy-naïve inpatients (45 males and 20 females) treated with high doses (at least 50 mg/m2) of cisplatin entered the study and 54 completed both treatments. Complete protection from vomiting and nausea, mean number of emetic episodes, mean maximum intensity of nausea and mean duration of emesis or nausea were similar with the two antiemetic regimens. 23 patients (43%) did not express a treatment preference, while 16 (30%) preferred regimen B and 15 (28%) preferred regimen A. Side-effects were similar with the two metoclopramide schedules. A combined antiemetic regimen of a single high dose of metoclopramide (4 mg/kg) can preserve efficacy and tolerability and thus should be preferred.

Activity of gemcitabine in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a multicentre, extended phase II study.

Gemcitabine is a novel nucleoside analogue with activity in solid tumours. This study assessed the objective response rate to gemcitabine given weekly intravenously at a dose of 1250 mg/m2 for 3 weeks followed by 1 week of rest (one cycle) in chemonaive patients with inoperable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). 161 patients with NSCLC were recruited from 10 sites in nine countries. Most patients had stage IIIb (31.3%) or IV (64.6%) disease, and 93.8% had a performance status of 0 or 1 according to the WHO scale. Of 151 evaluable patients, there were 3 complete responses and 30 partial responses lasting at least 4 weeks for an objective response rate of 21.8% (95% CI 15.5-29.3%). All responses were validated by an extramural Oncology Review Board. The mean duration of response was 8.8 months. The mean survival for all patients (16.1% of patients still alive 26 months after last patient started treatment) was 11.5 months. Improvements were also observed in secondary efficacy parameters such as performance status, weight, analgesic requirement, pain, and other disease-related symptoms including cough, dyspnoea, haemoptysis, anorexia, somnolence and hoarseness. Haematological and non-haematological toxicity was mild given the biological activity of gemcitabine. This study confirms gemcitabine as one of the most active agents in NSCLC with the added benefit of a modest toxicity profile and ease of administration on an out-patient basis. Gemcitabine is a suitable candidate for combination chemotherapy in patients with NSCLC.

Epirubicin versus CMF as adjuvant therapy for stage I and II breast cancer: a prospective randomised study.

We compared a relatively short regimen of monochemotherapy with epirubicin versus polychemotherapy with CMF (cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil) as adjuvant treatment for stage I and II breast cancer patients. 348 patients with oestrogen receptor negative (ER-) node negative and ER- or ER+ node-positive with <10 nodes were accrued. CMF was given intravenously (i.v.) on days 1 and 8, every 4 weeks, for six courses; epirubicin was given weekly for 4 months. Postmenopausal patients received tamoxifen for 3 years. The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS), relapse-free survival (RFS) and event-free survival (EFS). Outcome evaluation was performed both in eligible patients and in all randomised patients according to the intention-to-treat principle. 8 randomised patients were considered ineligible. At a median follow-up of 8 years, there was no difference in OS (Hazard Ratio (HR)=1.11, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.77-1.61, P=0.58), EFS (HR=1.14, 95% CI: 0.78-1.64, P=0.48), and RFS (HR=1.14, 95% CI: 0.8-1.64, P=0.48) between the two arms for all of the patients. At 8 years, the RFS percentages (+/-Standard Error (S.E.)) were 65.4% (+/-4%) in the CMF arm and 62.7% (+/-4%) in the epirubicin arm; for EFS these were 64.2% (+/-4%) for CMF and 60.8% (+/-4%) for epirubicin, respectively. A significant difference in RFS (P=0.015) was observed in patients with 4-9 positive nodes in favour of the CMF arm. Toxicity in the two arms was superimposable except for more frequent grade 3 alopecia in the epirubicin-treated patients (P=0.001). Overall, at a median follow-up of 8 years, there were no differences between the two arms in terms of OS, EFS and RFS.