Comparative study for measuring efficacy of docetaxel plus cyclophosphamide and doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide in adjuvant chemotherapy of female breast cancer


Background. Different anticancer drugs are used in combination or alone to treat breast cancer depending upon the status of the patient. Oncologists need to know a drug’s efficacy; therefore, they compare different chemotherapies by considering side effects and overall survival so that suitable drugs can be prescribed. We present a comparison of adjuvant chemotherapies treating breast cancer with docetaxel plus cyclophosphamide (TC) and doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide (AC) showing pathological markers and overall survival.

Method. For 4 to 8 cycles, (after every 21 days) out of 358 patients, 189 received TC (140 ml/m2 of docetaxel (IV) plus 1000 mg/m2 of cyclophosphamide) and 169 women were treated with AC (50/100 ml/m2 of doxorubicin (IV) plus 1000 mg/m2 of cyclophosphamide. On the basis of patients’ assessment by pathological markers, side effects of docetaxel, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide are listed in our database using R programming language. The common factors and side effects given in MedlinePlus, NIH US database and from our database are separated to be included in comparison for this study. Statistically, we used Chi-Square Test for Homogeneity of Proportions at α = 0.05.

Results. There was no significant difference between proportions of patients with vomiting, extreme tiredness, diarrhoea, mild anaemia, stability and overall survival because p value > 0.05. However, p value < 0.05 for AC remains less toxic by 22.6%, 25.7% and 25.3% than TC in changes in taste, muscle pain and hands burning respectively, whereas TC remains less toxic by 52.9%, 26.3%, 11.3%, 32.5%, 15.5% and 1.75% in dizziness, sore throat, moderate anaemia, weight loss, blood transfusion and haemoglobin level respectively.

Discussion. TC is less toxic than AC in more aspects, whereas both combinations have same overall survival rate.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. That said, if the manuscript is accepted for publication then the reviewer reports can be optionally signed and made public (see below).
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).
  • If the article is accepted, then the authors are given the option to reproduce the reviewer reports, and their full revision history, alongside their finally published article. In those instances, the comments of the reviewers will be made public (although reviewers' names will never be revealed unless the reviewer opted to sign their review, as noted above).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at