Trial reportBritish journal of cancer2014
Selecting first-line bevacizumab-containing therapy for advanced breast cancer: TURANDOT risk factor analyses.
Trial report in British journal of cancer, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00600340 (A Randomized Phase III 2-arm Trial of Paclitaxel Plus Bevacizumab vs. Capecitabine Plus Bevacizumab for the First-line Treatment of Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2), which is not on this map. Cited by 15 papers, 5 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.
A Randomized Phase III 2-arm Trial of Paclitaxel Plus Bevacizumab vs. Capecitabine Plus Bevacizumab for the First-line Treatment of Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 (HER2)-Negative Locally Recurrent or Metastatic Breast Cancer
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Immune checkpoint inhibitors in first-line therapies of metastatic or early triple-negative breast cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2023Pooled it
- Capecitabine for hormone receptor-positive versus hormone receptor-negative breast cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Current treatment landscape for patients with locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer: a systematic literature review.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2019Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Predictive role of hand-foot syndrome in patients receiving first-line capecitabine plus bevacizumab for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer.British journal of cancer · 2016Trial
- Targeting RTKs/nRTKs as promising therapeutic strategies for the treatment of triple-negative breast cancer: evidence from clinical trials.Military Medical Research · 2024Review
- Factors affecting prognosis in patients treated with bevacizumab plus paclitaxel as first-line chemotherapy for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: an international pooled analysis of individual patient data from four prospective observational studies.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2023Observational
- Evaluation of Information Theoretic Network Meta-analysis to Rank First-Line Anticancer Regimens for Hormone Receptor-Positive, ERBB2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- Efficacy and safety of taxanes combined with chemotherapy drugs in advanced triple negative breast cancer: A meta-analysis of 26 randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Review
- Factors associated with prolonged overall survival in patients with postmenopausal estrogen receptor-positive advanced breast cancer using real-world data: a follow-up analysis of the JBCRG-C06 Safari study.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2020Article
- Cell-specific biomarkers and targeted biopharmaceuticals for breast cancer treatment.Cell proliferation · 2016Review
- Disrupting VEGF-A paracrine and autocrine loops by targeting SHP-1 suppresses triple negative breast cancer metastasis.Scientific reports · 2016Article
- Clinical implications of molecular heterogeneity in triple negative breast cancer.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2015Review
- Bevacizumab as First-line Treatment for HER2-negative Advanced Breast Cancer: Paclitaxel plus BevacizumabIn vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe randomised phase III TURANDOT trial compared first-line bevacizumab-paclitaxel (BEV-PAC) vs bevacizumab-capecitabine (BEV-CAP) in HER2-negative locally recurrent/metastatic breast cancer (LR/mBC). The interim analysis revealed no difference in overall survival (OS; primary end point) between treatment arms; however, progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate were significantly superior with BEV-PAC. We sought to identify patient populations that may be most appropriately treated with one or other regimen.
methodsPatients with HER2-negative LR/mBC who had received no prior chemotherapy for advanced disease were randomised to either BEV-PAC (bevacizumab 10 mg kg(-1) days 1 and 15 plus paclitaxel 90 mg m(-2) days 1, 8 and 15 q4w) or BEV-CAP (bevacizumab 15 mg kg(-1) day 1 plus capecitabine 1000 mg m(-2) bid days 1-14 q3w). The study population was categorised into three cohorts: triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), high-risk hormone receptor-positive (HR+) and low-risk HR+. High- and low-risk HR+ were defined, respectively, as having ⩾2 vs ⩽1 of the following four risk factors: disease-free interval ⩽24 months; visceral metastases; prior (neo)adjuvant anthracycline and/or taxane; and metastases in ⩾3 organs.
resultsThe treatment effect on OS differed between cohorts. Non-significant OS trends favoured BEV-PAC in the TNBC cohort and BEV-CAP in the low-risk HR+ cohort. In all three cohorts, there was a non-significant PFS trend favouring BEV-PAC. Grade ⩾3 adverse events were consistently less common with BEV-CAP.
conclusionsA simple risk factor index may help in selecting bevacizumab-containing regimens, balancing outcome, safety profile and patient preference. Final OS results are expected in 2015 (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00600340).
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.