Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Advertisement

British Journal of Cancer
  • View all journals
  • Search
  • My Account Login
  • Content Explore content
  • About the journal
  • Publish with us
  • Sign up for alerts
  • RSS feed
  1. nature
  2. british journal of cancer
  3. regular article
  4. article
Randomized trial to compare the efficacy and toxicity of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil (CMF) with methotrexate mitoxantrone (MM) in advanced carcinoma of the breast
Download PDF
Download PDF
  • Regular Article
  • Open access
  • Published: 27 August 1999

Randomized trial to compare the efficacy and toxicity of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil (CMF) with methotrexate mitoxantrone (MM) in advanced carcinoma of the breast

  • C Harper-Wynne1,
  • J English1,
  • L Meyer2,
  • M Bower1,
  • C Archer1,
  • H D Sinnett3,
  • C Lowdell4 &
  • …
  • R C Coombes1 

British Journal of Cancer volume 81, pages 316–322 (1999)Cite this article

  • 1270 Accesses

  • 29 Citations

  • Metrics details

This article has been updated

Summary

One hundred and sixteen patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer were randomized to receive CMF (cyclophosphamide 600 mg m–2 day 1 and 8 i.v., 5-fluorouracil 600 mg m–2 day 1 and 8 i.v.,, methotrexate 40 mg m–2 day 1 and 8 i.v., monthly for 6 cycles) or MM (methotrexate 30 mg m–2, mitoxantrone 6.5 mg m–2, both i.v. day 1 3-weekly for 8 cycles) as first line treatment with chemotherapy. Objective responses occurred in 17 patients out of 58 (29%) who received CMF and nine out of 58 (15%) who received MM; 95% confidence interval for difference in response rates (–1%–29%), P = 0.07. No statistically significant differences were seen in overall survival or time to progression between the two regimes although a tendency towards a shorter progression time on the MM regime must be acknowledged. There was, however, significantly reduced haematological toxicity (P < 0.001) and alopecia (P < 0.001) and fewer dose reductions and delays in patients randomized to MM. No statistically significant differences were seen between the two regimes in terms of quality of life (QOL). However, some association between QOL and toxicity was apparent overall with pooled QOL estimates tending to indicate a worsening in psychological state with increasing maximum toxicity over treatment. Despite the fact that results surrounding response rates and time to progression did not reach statistical significance, their possible compatibility with an improved outcome on CMF treatment must be borne in mind. However, MM is a well-tolerated regimen with fewer side-effects than CMF, which with careful patient management and follow-up, therefore, may merit consideration as a first-line treatment to palliate patients with metastatic breast cancer who are infirm or elderly.

Similar content being viewed by others

Real-world data on trastuzumab emtansine (TDM1) efficacy and safety: Results of a single-centre retrospective study of HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer patients

Article Open access 28 May 2025

Combination chemotherapy and hormone therapy in patients with hormone receptor positive and HER2 negative metastatic breast cancer

Article Open access 01 August 2025

Neuroprotective effect of Mulmina Mango against chemotherapy-induced cognitive decline in mouse model of mammary carcinoma

Article Open access 23 February 2022

Article PDF

Change history

  • 16 November 2011

    This paper was modified 12 months after initial publication to switch to Creative Commons licence terms, as noted at publication

References

  • Aisner, J, Weinberg, V & Perloff, M et al (1987). Chemotherapy versus chemoimmunotherapy (CAFV CAFVP v CMF IMER) for metastatic carcinoma of the breast. A CALGB study. J Clin Oncol 5: 1523–1533.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bull, JM, Tormey, DC & Shou-Hua, L et al (1978). A randomized comparative trial of adriamycin versus methotrexate in combination drug therapy. Cancer 41: 1649–1657.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Canellos, GP, De Vita, VT & Gold, GL et al (1976). Combination chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer: response and effect on survival. Ann Int Med 84: 389–392.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Clavel, M & Catimel, G (1993). Breast cancer: chemotherapy in the treatment of advanced disease. Eur J Cancer, 29A 4: 598–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, FT, Gelman, R & Horton, J (1995). Comparison of CAF versus CMFP in metastatic breast cancer: Analysis of prognostic factors. J Clin Oncol 3: 932–940.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De-Haes, JC, van-Knippenberg, FC & Neijt, JP (1990). Measuring psychological and physical distress in cancer patients: structure and application of the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist. Br J Cancer 62: 1034–1038.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • EORTC: A practical guide to EORTC Studies, (1996). February

  • Greenspan, EM (1966). Combination cytotoxic chemotherapy in advanced disseminated breast carcinoma. J Mt Sinai Hosp 33: 1–27.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hayward, JL, Rubens, RD & Carbone, PP et al (1977). Assessment of response to therapy in advanced breast cancer. Br J Cancer 35: 292–298.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Honig, SF (1996). Treatment of metastatic disease: hormonal therapy and chemotherapy. In:Diseases of the Breast, Harris JR, Lippman MC, Morrow M Lippincott: Philadelphia 669–734.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jodrell, DI, Smith, IE & Mansi, JL et al (1991). A randomised comparative trial of mitoxantrone/methotrexate/mitomycin C (MMM) and cyclophosphamide/methotrexate/5 FU (CMF) in the treatment of advanced breast cancer. Br J Cancer 63: 794–798.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Maguire, P & Selby, P (1989). Assessing quality of life in cancer patients. Br J Cancer 60: 437–440.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mouridsen, H (1992). Systemic therapy of advanced disease. Drugs 44: 17–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Payne, SA (1992). A study of quality of life in cancer patients receiving palliative chemotherapy. Soc Sci Med 35: 1505–1509.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Peto, R, Pike, MC & Armitage, P et al (1977). Design and analysis of randomised clinical trials requiring prolonged observation of each patient. Part 2 Analysis and examples. Br J Cancer 35: 1–39.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Powles, TJ, Jones, AL & Judson, IR et al (1991). A randomised trial comparing combination chemotherapy using mitomycin C, mitoxantrone and methotrexate (3M) with vincristine, anthracycline and cyclophosphamide (VAC) in advanced breast cancer. Br J Cancer 64: 406–410.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Smalley, RV, Lefante, J & Bartolucci, A et al (1983). CAF v CMFVP in patients with advanced breast cancer. Breast Cancer Teat Res 3: 209–210.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stein, RC, Bower, M & Law, M et al (1992). Mitoxantrone and methotrexate chemotherapy with and without mitomycin C in the treatment of advanced breast cancer: A randomised clinical trial. Eur J Cancer 28A: 1963–1965.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, DJ, Evans, WK & Shepherd, FA et al (1997). Cyclophosphamide and fluorouracil combined with mitoxantrone versus doxorubicin for breast cancer: superiority of doxorubicin. J Clin Oncol 15: 1897–1905.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tannock, IF, Boyd, NF & DeBoer, G et al (1988). A randomised trial of two dose levels of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and fluorouracil chemotherapy for patients with metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 6: 1377–1387.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tormey, DC, Gelman, R & Band, PR et al (1982). Comparison of induction chemotherapies for metastatic breast cancer. An Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Trial. Cancer 50: 1235–1244.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • World Health Organisation (1979). WHO Handbook for Reporting of Cancer Treatment. WHO: Geneva

  • Zigmond, AS & Snaith, RP (1983). The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand 67: 361–363.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Research Campaign Laboratories, Imperial College School of Medicine, Charing Cross Hospital, Fulham Palace Road, London, W6 8RF, UK

    C Harper-Wynne, J English, M Bower, C Archer & R C Coombes

  2. Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit, Block D, Section of Epidemiology, The Institute for Cancer Research, Sutton, Surrey, SM2 5NG, UK

    L Meyer

  3. Department of Surgery, Charing Cross Hospital, Fulham Palace Road, London, W6 8RF, UK

    H D Sinnett

  4. Department of Radiotherapy, Charing Cross Hospital, Fulham Palace Road, London, W6 8RF, UK

    C Lowdell

Authors
  1. C Harper-Wynne
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J English
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. L Meyer
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M Bower
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. C Archer
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. H D Sinnett
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  7. C Lowdell
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  8. R C Coombes
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

From twelve months after its original publication, this work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Harper-Wynne, C., English, J., Meyer, L. et al. Randomized trial to compare the efficacy and toxicity of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil (CMF) with methotrexate mitoxantrone (MM) in advanced carcinoma of the breast. Br J Cancer 81, 316–322 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6990694

Download citation

  • Received: 02 November 1998

  • Revised: 27 February 1999

  • Accepted: 12 April 1999

  • Published: 27 August 1999

  • Issue date: 01 September 1999

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6990694

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Keywords

  • breast cancer
  • chemotherapy
  • metastases
  • mitoxantrone
  • methotrexate

This article is cited by

  • Striking response with bevacizumab and chemotherapy in a woman with heavily pretreated breast cancer: a case presentation

    • K. Prassl
    • A. Sahanic
    • M. Fiegl

    memo - Magazine of European Medical Oncology (2008)

  • Locally advanced breast cancer in octogenarian women

    • Max Mano
    • Ghislaine Fraser
    • Peter Canney

    Breast Cancer Research and Treatment (2005)

  • Quality of life in randomized trials of cytotoxic or hormonal treatment of advanced breast cancer. Is there added value?

    • Roldano Fossati
    • Carlo Confalonieri
    • Giovanni Apolone

    Breast Cancer Research and Treatment (2004)

Download PDF

Advertisement

Explore content

  • Research articles
  • Reviews & Analysis
  • News & Comment
  • Current issue
  • Collections
  • Follow us on Twitter
  • Sign up for alerts
  • RSS feed

About the journal

  • Journal Information
  • Open access publishing
  • About the Editors
  • Contact
  • Special Issues
  • For Advertisers
  • Subscribe

Publish with us

  • For Authors & Referees
  • Language editing services
  • Open access funding
  • Submit manuscript

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

  • Explore articles by subject
  • Find a job
  • Guide to authors
  • Editorial policies

British Journal of Cancer (Br J Cancer)

ISSN 1532-1827 (online)

ISSN 0007-0920 (print)

nature.com sitemap

About Nature Portfolio

  • About us
  • Press releases
  • Press office
  • Contact us

Discover content

  • Journals A-Z
  • Articles by subject
  • protocols.io
  • Nature Index

Publishing policies

  • Nature portfolio policies
  • Open access

Author & Researcher services

  • Reprints & permissions
  • Research data
  • Language editing
  • Scientific editing
  • Nature Masterclasses
  • Research Solutions

Libraries & institutions

  • Librarian service & tools
  • Librarian portal
  • Open research
  • Recommend to library

Advertising & partnerships

  • Advertising
  • Partnerships & Services
  • Media kits
  • Branded content

Professional development

  • Nature Awards
  • Nature Careers
  • Nature Conferences

Regional websites

  • Nature Africa
  • Nature China
  • Nature India
  • Nature Japan
  • Nature Middle East
  • Privacy Policy
  • Use of cookies
  • Legal notice
  • Accessibility statement
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Your US state privacy rights
Springer Nature

© 2026 Springer Nature Limited