Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20808300›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Clinical oncology2010

Rechallenging with anthracyclines and taxanes in metastatic breast cancer.

Carlo Palmieri, Jonathan Krell, Colin R James, Catherine Harper-Wynne, Vivek Misra, Susan Cleator, David Miles

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Clinical oncology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 64 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Modern synthetic pathways towards eribulin and its subunits.Beilstein journal of organic chemistry · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Efficacy and safety of rechallenge [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2024
    Observational
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Carlo PalmieriCancer Research UK Laboratories, Department of Oncology, MRC Cyclotron Building, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, Du Cane Road, London W12 ONN, UK. c.palmieri@imperial.ac.uk
Jonathan Krell
Colin R James
Catherine Harper-Wynne
Vivek Misra
Susan Cleator
David Miles
Imperial College London · GBMaidstone Hospital · GBMount Vernon Hospital · GBQueen's University Belfast · GBThe Christie Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Adjuvant use of anthracycline-taxane combination therapy is an accepted strategy in the management of high-risk early-stage breast cancer. However, the introduction of this regimen raises the question of how best to manage those patients who relapse following adjuvant therapy, and whether there is a role for rechallenging in the metastatic setting with the same agent, or class of agent, that has been utilized in the adjuvant setting. This Review examines the evidence for rechallenging with both anthracyclines and taxanes, and highlights the issues that need to be examined in the context of future clinical trials.

Indexed as

AnthracyclinesAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsBreast NeoplasmsChemotherapy, AdjuvantFemaleHumansNeoplasm MetastasisRetreatmentTaxoidsAnthracyclinesTaxoids

Identifiers

PMID20808300
OpenAlexW2019305724

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.