Trial reportThe oncologist2012
Phase II trial of simple oral therapy with capecitabine and cyclophosphamide in patients with metastatic breast cancer: SWOG S0430.
Trial report in The oncologist, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Phase II studies of two different schedules of dasatinib in bone metastasis predominant metastatic breast cancer: SWOG S0622.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2016Trial
- Evaluation of the clinical benefits of adjuvant capecitabine monotherapy in elderly women with breast cancer: A retrospective study.Molecular and clinical oncology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInterest in oral agents for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) has increased because many patients prefer oral to i.v. regimens. We evaluated a simple oral combination of capecitabine with cyclophosphamide (CPA) for MBC.
methodsThe trial was designed to determine whether or not combination therapy would achieve a 42% response rate (RR) using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) in MBC. Patients with two or fewer prior chemotherapy regimens for MBC were eligible. Those with estrogen receptor-positive MBC had to have progressed on endocrine therapy. Patients had measurable disease or elevated mucin (MUC)-1 antigen and received CPA, 100 mg daily on days 1-14, and capecitabine, 1,500 mg twice daily on days 8-21, in 21-day cycles.
resultsIn 96 eligible patients, the median progression-free survival (PFS) interval was 5.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.7-8.0 months) and median overall survival (OS) time was 18.8 months (95% CI, 13.1-22.0 months). The RR was 36% (95% CI, 26%-48%) in 80 patients with measurable disease. The MUC-1 antigen RR was 33% (95% CI, 20%-48%), occurring in 15 of 46 patients with elevated MUC-1 antigen. Toxicity was mild, with no treatment-related deaths.
conclusionsPFS, OS, and RR outcomes with capecitabine plus CPA compare favorably with those of capecitabine monotherapy and combination therapy with bevacizumab, sorafenib, or ixabepilone. The addition of these other agents to capecitabine does not improve OS time in MBC patients, and this single-arm study does not suggest that the addition of CPA to capecitabine has this potential in an unselected MBC population. When OS prolongation is the goal, clinicians should choose single-agent capecitabine.
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.