Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19370586›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2009

Single agent versus combination chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer.

Sue Carrick, Sharon Parker, Charlene E Thornton, Davina Ghersi, John Simes, Nicholas Wilcken

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

59 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Lapatinib for treatment of advanced or metastasized breast cancer: systematic review.Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina · 2009
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy of breast cancer with pirarubicin versus epirubicin in combination with cyclophosphamide and docetaxel.Tumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine · 2015
    Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Sue CarrickResearch Strategy, National Breast Cancer Foundation, GPO Box 4126, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2001. sue.carrick@nbcf.org.au
Sharon Parker
Charlene E Thornton
Davina Ghersi
John Simes
Nicholas Wilcken

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCombination chemotherapy regimens are frequently favoured over single agents for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer, in an attempt to achieve superior tumour response rates. It is not known however whether giving more intensive chemotherapy regimens results in better health outcomes, when both survival and toxicity are considered, and whether better response rates and rates of progression free survival actually translate to better overall survival.

objectivesTo compare single agent with combination chemotherapy for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group Specialised Register November 2008. Handsearching of recent conference proceedings was also undertaken. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials of single agent chemotherapy compared to combination therapy in metastatic breast cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trials for eligibility and quality, and extracted data. Hazard ratios were derived for reported time-to-event outcomes.Response rates were analysed as dichotomous variables. Toxicity and quality of life data were extracted where present. MAIN

resultsForty three eligible trials (48 comparisons) were identified. These included 9742 women, 55% of whom were receiving first-line treatment for metastatic disease. For overall survival there was a statistically significant difference in favour of the combination regimens with no heterogeneity (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.83-0.93, p<0.00001). Results were very similar when trials of first-line treatment were analysed, and for analyses where the single agent was also included in the combination regimen. Combination regimens showed a statistically significant advantage for survival over single agent taxane (HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.75-0.89, p<0.00001), but not anthracycline (HR 0.94.86-1.02, p=0.15).Combination regimens were also associated with significantly better time to progression (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.74 - 0.82, p<0.00001) and response (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.14 -1.45, p<0.0001) although heterogeneity was statistically significant in both instances and probably due to clinical diversity of the participants and interventions.Women receiving combination regimens experienced a statistically significant detrimental effect on white cell count, increased alopecia and nausea and vomiting. AUTHORS'

conclusionsCombination chemotherapy regimens show a statistically significant advantage for survival, tumor response and time to progression in women with metastatic breast cancer but they also produce more toxicity. An unresolved question is whether combination regimens are more effective than single agents given sequentially.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsBreast NeoplasmsDisease ProgressionFemaleHumansQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeAntineoplastic Agents

Identifiers

PMID19370586
PMCPMC6885070

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.