SynthesisJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2011
A literature-based meta-analysis taxane-based doublet versus single-agent taxane chemotherapy in patients with advanced breast cancer.
Synthesis in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Deviation from intention to treat analysis in randomised trials and treatment effect estimates: meta-epidemiological study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2015Pooled it
- Chemotherapy and targeted therapy for women with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (or unknown) advanced breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2014Guideline
- Meta-analysis of phase III trials of docetaxel alone or in combination with chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2012Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeClinical trials have reported conflicting results as to whether taxane-based doublet improves outcome over single-agent taxane in patients with advanced breast cancer.
methodsWe performed a meta-analysis comparing primary and secondary end points of taxane-based doublet with single-agent taxane chemotherapy in patients with advanced breast cancer and prior anthracycline treatment. The event-based relative risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) was derived, and a test of heterogeneity was applied.
resultsFour eligible trials (2,343 patients) were selected from 488 studies that initially were identified. A significant difference in favoring taxane-based doublet over single-agent taxane was observed in progression-free survival (PFS) (RR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.02-1.75; P = 0.039) and partial response (PR) (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.10-1.86; P = 0.008). The ORR was higher for patients receiving taxane-based doublet, although not statistically significant (RR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.91-1.50; P = 0.220). Whereas there was no difference in 1-year survival rate (1-year SR) (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.94-1.17; P = 0.422), clinical benefit (CB) (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.95-1.09; P = 0.642), and complete response (CR) (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.31-1.79; P = 0.512). Toxicities did not differ significantly except stomatitis and diarrhea.
conclusionTaxane-based doublet appeared to improve PFS and PR compared with single-agent taxane in the treatment of patients with advanced breast cancer. Further prospective, randomized, controlled trials will be necessary.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.