Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2016 May 20;2016(5):CD003139.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003139.pub3.

High-dose chemotherapy and autologous bone marrow or stem cell transplantation versus conventional chemotherapy for women with early poor prognosis breast cancer

Cindy Farquhar  1 , Jane Marjoribanks, Anne Lethaby, Maimoona Azhar
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

High-dose chemotherapy and autologous bone marrow or stem cell transplantation versus conventional chemotherapy for women with early poor prognosis breast cancer

Cindy Farquhar et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Overall survival rates are disappointing for women with early poor prognosis breast cancer. Autologous transplantation of bone marrow or peripheral stem cells (in which the woman is both donor and recipient) has been considered a promising technique because it permits use of much higher doses of chemotherapy.

Objectives: To compare the effectiveness and safety of high-dose chemotherapy and autograft (either autologous bone marrow or stem cell transplantation) with conventional chemotherapy for women with early poor prognosis breast cancer.

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1966 to October 2015), EMBASE (1980 to October 2015), the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Search Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov on the 21 October 2015.

Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing high-dose chemotherapy and autograft (bone marrow transplant or stem cell rescue) versus chemotherapy without autograft for women with early poor prognosis breast cancer.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors selected RCTs, independently extracted data and assessed risks of bias. We combined data using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model to calculate pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE methods. Outcomes were survival rates, toxicity and quality of life.

Main results: We included 14 RCTs of 5600 women randomised to receive high-dose chemotherapy and autograft (bone marrow transplant or stem cell rescue) versus chemotherapy without autograft for women with early poor prognosis breast cancer. The studies were at low risk of bias in most areas.There is high-quality evidence that high-dose chemotherapy does not increase the likelihood of overall survival at any stage of follow-up (at three years: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.10, 3 RCTs, 795 women, I² = 56%; at five years: RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.04, 9 RCTs, 3948 women, I² = 0%; at six years: RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.08, 1 RCT, 511 women; at eight years: RR1.17, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.43, 1 RCT, 344 women; at 12 years: RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.42, 1 RCT, 382 women).There is high-quality evidence that high-dose chemotherapy improves the likelihood of event-free survival at three years (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.34, 3 RCTs, 795 women, I² = 56%) but this effect was no longer apparent at longer duration of follow-up (at five years: RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.09, 9 RCTs, 3948 women, I² = 14%; at six years RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.24, 1 RCT, 511 women; at eight years: RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.64, 1 RCT, 344 women; at 12 years: RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.45, 1 RCT, 382 women).Treatment-related deaths were much more frequent in the high-dose arm (RR 7.97, 95% CI 3.99 to 15.92, 14 RCTs, 5600 women, I² = 12%, high-quality evidence) and non-fatal morbidity was also more common and more severe in the high-dose group. There was little or no difference between the groups in the incidence of second cancers at four to nine years' median follow-up (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.73, 7 RCTs, 3423 women, I² = 0%, high-quality evidence). Women in the high-dose group reported significantly worse quality-of-life scores immediately after treatment, but there were few statistically significant differences between the groups by one year.The primary studies were at low risk of bias in most areas, and the evidence was assessed using GRADE methods and rated as high quality for all comparisons.

Authors' conclusions: There is high-quality evidence of increased treatment-related mortality and little or no increase in survival by using high-dose chemotherapy with autograft for women with early poor prognosis breast cancer.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Cindy Farquhar: No conflict of interest

Jane Marjoribanks: No conflict of interest

Anne Lethaby: No conflict of interest

Maimoona Azhar: No conflict of interest

Figures

1
1
Study flow diagram.
2
2
Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
3
3
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
4
4
Forest plot of comparison: 1 High‐dose chemotherapy versus standard chemotherapy, outcome: 1.1 Overall survival.
5
5
Forest plot of comparison: 1 High‐dose chemotherapy versus standard chemotherapy, outcome: 1.2 Event‐free survival.
6
6
Funnel plot of comparison: 1 High‐dose chemotherapy versus standard chemotherapy, outcome: 1.3 Treatment‐related mortality.
1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 High‐dose chemotherapy versus standard chemotherapy, Outcome 1 Overall survival.
1.2
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1 High‐dose chemotherapy versus standard chemotherapy, Outcome 2 Event‐free survival.
1.3
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1 High‐dose chemotherapy versus standard chemotherapy, Outcome 3 Treatment‐related mortality.
1.4
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1 High‐dose chemotherapy versus standard chemotherapy, Outcome 4 Second cancers.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

Comment in

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

References to studies included in this review

ACCOG 2004 {published data only}
    1. Forbes AJ, Foster E, Lind MJ, Twelves C, Wilson CB, Crown JP, et al. Quality of life in the Anglo‐Celtic randomised trial of high dose adjuvant chemotherapy. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 2001;64(1):129. [Abstract 553]
    1. Leonard RCF, Lind M, Twelves C, Coleman R, Belle S, Wilson C, et al. 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 randomised trial. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2004;96(14):1076‐83. - PubMed
CALGB 2005 {published data only}
    1. Hurd DD, Peters WP. Randomized, comparative study of high‐dose (with autologous bone marrow support) versus low‐dose cyclophosphamide, cisplatin, and carmustine as consolidation to adjuvant cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and fluorouracil for patients with operable Stage II or III breast cancer involving 10 or more axillary lymph nodes (CALGB Protocol 9082). Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs 1995;19:41‐4. - PubMed
    1. Marks LB, Cirrincione C, Fitzgerald TJ, Laurie F, Glicksman AS, Vredenburgh J, et al. Impact of high‐dose chemotherapy on the ability to deliver subsequent local‐regional radiotherapy for breast cancer: analysis of cancer and leukemia group B protocol 9082. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics 2010;76(5):1305‐13. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Peppercorn J, Herndon J, Kornblith AB, Peters W, Ahles T, Vredenburgh J, et al. The Cancer and Leukaemia Group B (CALGB) and The Southwestern Oncology Group (SWOG). Quality of life among patients with stage II and III breast carcinoma randomized to receive high‐dose chemotherapy with autologous bone marrow support or intermediate‐dose chemotherapy. Cancer 2005;104(8):1580‐9. - PubMed
Dutch Intergp 2003 {published data only}
    1. Buijs C, Rodenhuis S, Seynaeve CM, Hoesel QG, WE, Smit WJ, et al. Prospective study of long‐term impact of adjuvant high‐dose and conventional‐dose chemotherapy on health‐related quality of life. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2007;25(34):5403‐9. - PubMed
    1. Cottu OH, Cuvier C, Laurence V, Espié M. High‐dose adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: state of the art. Cancer Futures 2001;12(1):27‐30. - PubMed
    1. Vries EGE, Mastenbroek CC, Rodenhuis S. High‐dose chemotherapy for breast cancer. Annals of Internal Medicine 1997;126(11):917‐8. - PubMed
    1. Nieboer P, Vries EGE, Mulder NH, Rodenhuis S, Bontenbal M, Wall E, et al. Factors influencing catheter‐related infections in the Dutch multicenter study on high‐dose chemotherapy followed by peripheral SCT in high‐risk breast cancer patients. Bone Marrow Transplantation 2008;42(7):475‐81. - PubMed
    1. Rodenhuis S, Bontenbal M, Beex LVAM, Wagstaff J, Richel DJ, Nooij MA, et al. High‐dose chemotherapy with hematopoietic stem‐cell rescue for high‐risk breast cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 2003;349(1):7‐15. - PubMed
Dutch pilot 1998 {published data only}
    1. Rodenhuis S, Richel DJ, Wall E, Schornagel JH, Baars JW, Koning CCE, et al. Randomised trial of high‐dose chemotherapy and haemopoietic progenitor‐cell support in operable breast cancer with extensive axillary lymph‐node involvement. Lancet 1998;352:515‐21. - PubMed
    1. Schrama JG, Faneyte IF, Schornagel JH, Baars JW, Peterse JL, Vijver MJ, et al. Randomized trial of high dose chemotherapy and hematopoietic progenitor‐cell support in operable breast cancer with extensive lymph node involvement: final analysis with 7 years of follow‐up. Annals of Oncology 2002;13(5):689‐98. - PubMed
ECOG 2003 {published data only}
    1. Tallman MS, Gray R, Robert NJ, LeMaistre CF, Osborne CK, Vaughan WP, et al. Conventional adjuvant chemotherapy with or without high‐dose chemotherapy and autologous stem‐cell transplantation in high‐risk breast cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 2003;349(1):17‐26. - PubMed
GABG 2004 {published data only}
    1. Scherwath A, Mehnert A, Schleimer B, Schirmer L, Fehlauer F, Kreienberg R, et al. Neuropsychological function in high‐risk breast cancer survivors after stem‐cell supported high‐dose therapy versus standard‐dose chemotherapy: evaluation of long‐term treatment effects. Annals of Oncology 2006;17(3):415‐23. - PubMed
    1. Zander AR, Krüger W, Schmoor C, Kröger N, Möbus V, Frickhofen N, et al. 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. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2004;22(12):1‐11. - PubMed
    1. Zander AR, Schmoor C, Kröger N, Krüger W, Möbus V, Frickhofen N, et al. Randomized trial of high‐dose adjuvant chemotherapy with autologous hematopoietic stem‐cell support versus standard‐dose chemotherapy in breast cancer patients with 10 or more positive lymph nodes: overall survival after 6 years of follow‐up. Annals of Oncology 2008;19(6):1082‐9. - PubMed
IBCSG 2006 {published data only}
    1. Colleoni M, Sun Z, Martinelli G, Basser RL, Coates AS, Gelber RD, et al. 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. Annals of Oncology 2009;20(8):1344‐51. - PMC - PubMed
    1. 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. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2006;24(3):370‐8. - PubMed
ICCG 2005 {published data only}
    1. Coombes RC, Howell A, Emson M, Peckitt C, Gallagher C, Bengala C, et al. 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. Annals of Oncology 2005;16(5):726‐34. - PubMed
JCOG 2001 {unpublished data only}
    1. Tokuda Y, Tajima T, Narabayashi M, Takeyama K, Watanabe T, Fukutomi T, et al. Randomized phase III study of high‐dose chemotherapy (HDC) with autologous stem cell support as consolidation in high‐risk postoperative breast cancer: Japan Clinical Oncology Group (JCOG9208). Poster Presentation: Asco Online: www.asco.org/. American Society of Clinical Oncology, 2001 (Accessed 24th July 2002).
    1. Tokuda Y, Tajima T, Narabayashi M, Takeyama K, Watanabe T, Fukutomi T, et al. 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 Science 2008;99(1):145‐51. - PMC - PubMed
MCG 2001 {unpublished data only}
    1. Cottu PH, Cuvier C, Laurence V, Espié M. High‐dose adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: state of the art. Cancer Futures 2001;12(1):27‐30. - PubMed
    1. Gianni A, Bonadonna G. Five‐year results of the randomized clinical trial comparing standard versus high‐dose myeloablative chemotherapy in the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer with>3 positive nodes (LN+). Asco Online: www.asco.org/. American Society of Clinical Oncology, 2001 (Accessed 27the June 2002).
    1. Gianni AM, Bonadonna G, Michelangelo Cooperative Group. Updated 12‐year results of a randomized clinical trial comparing standard‐dose to high‐dose myeloablative chemotherapy in the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer with more than three positive nodes (LN+). Journal of Clinical Oncology 2007 ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings (Post‐Meeting Edition);25(18S (June 20 Supplement)):549.
MDACC 2000 {published data only}
    1. Hanrahan EO, Broglio K, Frye D, Buzdar AU, Theriault RL, Valero V, et al. Randomized trial of high‐dose chemotherapy and autologous hematopoietic stem cell support for high‐risk primary breast carcinoma. Cancer 2006;106(11):2327‐36. - PubMed
    1. Hortobagyi GN, Buzdar AU, Theriault RL, Valero V, Frye D, Booser DJ, et al. Randomized trial of high‐dose chemotherapy and blood cell autografts for high‐risk primary breast carcinoma. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2000;92(3):225‐33. - PubMed
NCT00002772 {published data only}
    1. Moore HCF, Green SJ, Gralow JR, Bearman SI, Lew D, Barlow WE, et al. Intensive dose‐dense compared with high‐dose adjuvant chemotherapy for high‐risk operable breast cancer: Southwest Oncology Group/Intergroup study 9623. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2007;25(13):1677‐82. - PubMed
    1. NCT00002772. NCI high priority trial: Phase III randomized study of intensive sequential doxorubicin, paclitaxel and cyclophosphamide versus doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by STAMP I and STAMP V combination chemotherapy with autologous stem cell rescue in women with primary breast cancer and at least 4 involved axillary lymph nodes. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00002772. National Cancer Institute, 2001 (Accessed 21st June 2002).
PEGASE 01 2003 {published data only}
    1. Marino P, Roche H, Biron P, Janvier M, Spaeth D, Fabbro M, et al. Deterioration of quality of life of high‐risk breast cancer patients treated with high‐dose chemotherapy: The PEGASE 01 quality of life study. Value in Health 2008;11(4):709‐18. - PubMed
    1. Roche H, Viens P, Biron P, Lotz JP, Asselain B, PEGASE Group. High‐dose chemotherapy for breast cancer: the French PEGASE experience. Cancer Control 2003;10(1):42‐7. - PubMed
WSG 2005 {published data only}
    1. Gluz O, Mengele K, Schmitt M, Kates R, Diallo‐Danebrock R, Neff F, et al. Y‐box–binding protein YB‐1 identifies high‐risk patients with primary breast cancer benefiting from rapidly cycled tandem high‐dose adjuvant chemotherapy. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2009;27(36):6144‐51. - PubMed
    1. Nitz UA, Mohrmann S, Fischer J, Lindemann W, Berdel WE, Jackisch C, et al. 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;366(9501):1935‐44. - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Bergh 2000 {published data only}
    1. Bergh J, Wiklund T, Erikstein B, Lidbrink E, Lindman H, Malmstrom P, et al. Tailored fluorouracil, epirubicin and cyclophosphamide compared with marrow‐supported high‐dose chemotherapy as adjuvant treatment for high‐risk breast cancer: a randomised trial. The Lancet 2000;356(9239):1384‐91. - PubMed
    1. Brandberg Y. Scandinavian Breast Cancer study group: Quality of life in women with breast cancer randomised to adjuvant treatment with marrow supported high dose chemotherapy with Ctcb (Bmt) or tailored FEC therapy: The SBG 9401 study, Radiumhemmet, Karolinska Hospital. Asco Online : www.asco.org. American Society of Clinical Oncology, 2000 (Accessed 24th July 2002).
    1. Wilking N, Lidbrink E, Wiklund T, Erikstein B, Lindman H, Malmström P, et al. Scandinavian Breast Group, study SBG 9401. Long‐term follow‐up of the SBG 9401 study comparing tailored FEC‐based therapy versus marrow‐supported high‐dose therapy. Annals of Oncology 2007;18(4):694‐700. - PubMed
Bezwoda 1999 {published data only}
    1. Bezwoda W. Randomised, controlled trial of high dose chemotherapy (HD‐CNVp) versus standard dose (CAF) chemotherapy for high‐risk, surgically treated, primary breast cancer. Asco Online: www.asco.org. American Society of Clinical Oncologists, 1999 (Accessed 29th August 2002).
Sportès 2009 {published data only}
    1. Sportès C, Steinberg SM, Liewehr DJ, Gea‐Banacloche J, Danforth DN, Avila DN, et al. Strategies to improve long‐term outcome in stage IIIB inflammatory breast cancer: multimodality treatment including dose‐intensive induction and high‐dose chemotherapy. Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation 2009;15(8):963‐70. - PMC - PubMed

References to ongoing studies

Adkins/Isaacs 1998 {published data only}
    1. Isaacs RE, Adkins DR, Spitzer G, Freeman S, Pecora AL, Weaver C. A phase III multi‐institution randomized study comparing standard adjuvant chemotherapy to intensification with high‐dose chemotherapy (HDC) and autologous peripheral blood progenitor cell (PBPC) rescue in patients with stage II/IIIA breast cancer with 4‐9 involved axillary lymph nodes. Asco Online: www.asco.org/. American Society of Clinical Oncology, 1999 (Accessed 24th July 2002).
BCIRG 2002 {published data only}
    1. Nabholtz JM (PI). A multicenter phase III randomized trial comparing docetaxel in combination with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (TAC) with TAC followed by high dose chemotherapy with mitoxantrone, cyclophosphamide and vinorelbine (HDCT) with autologous peripheral stem cell transplantation and G‐CSF in adjuvant treatment of operable breast cancer with 4 or more positive axillary nodes. http://www.trioncology.org/studies/bcirg‐002/. Breast Cancer International Research Group, (Accessed 25th June 2002).
PEGASE 06 {published data only}
    1. Pouillart P (PI). Randomized multicentric exploratory study phase III evaluating the contribution of the therapeutic intensification with autotransplantation of hematopoietic cells in non metastatic breast cancer with ganglionic invasion [Etude prospective multicentrique randomisée de phase III évaluant l'apport de l'intensification thérapeutic avec autotransplantation de cellules hématopoïétiques dans les cancers du sein non métastasés avec envahissement ganglionnaire (N=8)]. FNCLCC website: www.fnclcc.fr. Fédération Nationale des Centres contre le Cancer, 2002 (Accessed 20th August 2002).
    1. Roche H, Viens P, Biron P, Lotz JP, Asselain B, PEGASE Group. High‐dose chemotherapy for breast cancer: the French PEGASE experience. Cancer Control 2003;10(1):42‐7. - PubMed
Seeber 2000 {unpublished data only}
    1. Nieto Y, Champlin RE, Wingard JR, Vredenburgh JJ, Elias AD, Richardson P, et al. Status of high‐dose chemotherapy for breast cancer: a review. Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation 2000;6(5):476‐95. - PubMed
    1. West German Cancer Center of Essen [pers comm]. [Personal communication]. Personal communication with Regina Schleucher 26th July 2003.

Additional references

ABMTR 2002
    1. IBMTR [pers comm]. Autologous Bone Marrow Transplant Registry: www.ibmtr.org. Melodee Nugent, personal communication with Cindy Farquar 16th May 2002.
ACS 2002
    1. American Cancer Society. Breast cancer facts and figures. American Cancer Society website: www.cancer.org 2002 (Accessed 6th September 2002).
Antman 1992
    1. Antman K, Ayash L, Elias A, Wheeler C, Hunt M, Eder JP, et al. A phase II study of high dose cyclophosphamide, thiopeta and carboplatinum with autologous marrow support in women with measurable advanced breast cancer responding to standard dose therapy. Journal of Clinical Oncology 1992;10(1):102‐10. - PubMed
Berry 2011
    1. Berry DA, Ueno NT, Johnson MM, Lei X, Caputo J, Rodenhuis S, et al. High‐dose chemotherapy with autologous stem‐cell support as adjuvant therapy in breast cancer: overview of 15 randomized trials. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2011;29(24):3214‐23. - PMC - PubMed
Bray 2004
    1. Bray F, Sankila R, Ferlay J, Parkin DM. Estimates of cancer incidence and mortality in Europe in 1995. European Journal of Cancer 2002;38(1):99‐166. - PubMed
Clarke 2008
    1. Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group. Multi‐agent chemotherapy for early breast cancer. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 4. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000487.pub2] - DOI - PubMed
DOH 2002
    1. National Health Service. Cancer Screening Programmes. Department of Health website: www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk. Department of Health, 2002 (Accessed 6th September 2002).
Eddy 1992
    1. Eddy DM. High‐dose chemotherapy with autologous bone marrow transplantation for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology 1992;10(4):657‐70 [Erratum in: Journal of Clinical Oncology 1992 Oct;10(10):1655‐8]. - PubMed
Ferlay 2015
    1. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. International Journal of Cancer 2015;136(5):E359‐86. - PubMed
Frei 1980
    1. Frei E III, Canellos GP. Dose: A critical factor in cancer chemotherapy. American Journal of Medicine 1980;69(4):585‐94. - PubMed
Gluz 2009
    1. Gluz O, Mengele K, Schmitt M, Kates R, Diallo‐Danebrock R, Neff F, et al. Y‐box–binding protein YB‐1 identifies high‐risk patients with primary breast cancer benefiting from rapidly cycled tandem high‐dose adjuvant chemotherapy. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2009;27(36):6144‐51. - PubMed
GRADEpro GDT
    1. GRADEpro GDT: GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool [Software]. McMaster University, 2015 (developed by Evidence Prime, Inc.). Available from www.gradepro.org.
Higgins 2003
    1. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta‐analyses. BMJ 2003;327(7414):557‐60. - PMC - PubMed
Higgins 2011
    1. Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane‐handbook.org.
Hryniuk 1986
    1. Hryniuk W, Levine MN. Analysis of dose intensity for adjuvant chemotherapy trials in stage II breast cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology 1986;4(8):1162‐70. - PubMed
Mantel 1959
    1. Mantel N, Haenszel WH. Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 1959;22(4):719‐48. - PubMed
Nemoto 1980
    1. Nemoto T, Vana J, Bedwani R, Baker HW, McGregor FH, Murphy GP. Management and survival of female breast cancer: results of a national survey by the American College of Surgeons. Cancer 1980;45(12):2917‐24. - PubMed
Nieto 2000
    1. Nieto Y, Champlin RE, Wingard JR, Vredenburgh JJ, Elias AD, Richardson P, et al. Status of High‐Dose Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer: A Review. Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation 2000;6(5):476‐95. - PubMed
Pedrazzoli 2015
    1. Pedrazzoli P, Martino M, Delfanti S, Generali D, Giovanni Rosti G, Bregni M, et al. European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT), Solid Tumor Working Party. High‐dose chemotherapy with autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for high‐risk primary breast cancer. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs 2015;2015(51):70‐5. - PubMed
Peters 1988
    1. Peters WP, Shpall EJ, Jones RB, Olsen GA, Bast RC, Gockerman JP, et al. High dose combination alkylating agents with bone marrow support as initial treatment for metastatic breast cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology 1988;6(9):1368‐76. - PubMed
Wang 2012
    1. Wang J, Zhang Q, Zhou R, Chen B, Ouyang J. High‐dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation as a first‐line therapy for high‐risk primary breast cancer: a meta‐analysis. PLoS ONE 2012;7(3):e33388. - PMC - PubMed
WHO 2000
    1. World Health Organization. Globocan. www‐depdb.iarc.fr/who/menu.htm 2000 (Accessed 19th May 2003).
Williams 1992
    1. Williams SF, Gilewski T, Mick R, Bitran JD. High dose consolidation therapy with autologous stem cell rescue in Stage IV breast cancer: A follow‐up report. Journal of Clinical Oncology 1992;10(11):1743‐7. - PubMed

References to other published versions of this review

Farquhar 2003
    1. Farquhar C, Basser R, Marjoribanks J, Lethaby A. High dose chemotherapy and autologous bone marrow or stem cell transplantation versus conventional chemotherapy for women with early poor prognosis breast cancer. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2003, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003139] - DOI - PubMed
Farquhar 2005
    1. Farquhar C, Marjoribanks J, Basser R, Lethaby A. High dose chemotherapy and autologous bone marrow or stem cell transplantation versus conventional chemotherapy for women with early poor prognosis breast cancer. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003139.pub2] - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Substances

LinkOut - more resources