Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26217553›Full record

ArticleSpringerPlus2015

Combination chemotherapy with mitomycin C and methotrexate is active against metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer even after treatment with anthracycline, taxane, capecitabine, and vinorelbine.

Takayo Fukuda, Masahiko Tanabe, Kokoro Kobayashi, Ippei Fukada, Shunji Takahashi, Takuji Iwase, Yoshinori Ito

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in SpringerPlus, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Drug Combinations in Breast Cancer Therapy.Pharmaceutical nanotechnology · 2019
    Review
  3. Review
  4. 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 1 institution in 1 country.

Takayo FukudaBreast Oncology Center, Cancer Institute Hospital, Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, Koto-ku, Tokyo Japan ; Department of Translational Oncology, St. Marianna University Graduate School of Medicine, Kawasaki, Kanagawa Japan.
Masahiko TanabeBreast Oncology Center, Cancer Institute Hospital, Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, Koto-ku, Tokyo Japan ; Department of Breast Oncology, Juntendo University School of Medicine, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo Japan.
Kokoro KobayashiBreast Oncology Center, Cancer Institute Hospital, Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, Koto-ku, Tokyo Japan.
Ippei FukadaBreast Oncology Center, Cancer Institute Hospital, Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, Koto-ku, Tokyo Japan.
Shunji TakahashiBreast Oncology Center, Cancer Institute Hospital, Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, Koto-ku, Tokyo Japan.
Takuji IwaseBreast Oncology Center, Cancer Institute Hospital, Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, Koto-ku, Tokyo Japan.
Yoshinori ItoBreast Oncology Center, Cancer Institute Hospital, Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, Koto-ku, Tokyo Japan.
Japanese Foundation For Cancer Research · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCombination chemotherapy with mitomycin C and methotrexate (MM) was reported to be effective for 24% of patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) who had been treated with anthracycline and taxane. Antimetabolites such as capecitabine and antitubulins such as vinorelbine have been generally used for MBC treatment after anthracycline and taxane. A subsequent choice of chemotherapy should be offered to patients with MBC who have kept good performance status (PS) after being aggressively treated with anthracycline, taxane, capecitabine, and vinorelbine (ATCV), but is not well clear which treatment is superior to others after ATCV. In this study, we examined whether MM treatment is a good choice following ATCV.

methodsWe retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 31 patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer who were treated with MM following ATCV. One cycle of MM was defined as MMC 8 mg/m(2) on day 1 and MTX 60 mg/m(2) on day 1 and day 15, administered intravenously every 4 weeks.

resultsResponse rate and clinical benefit rate were 9.7 and 19.4%, respectively. Median times to progression and times to failure were 3.9 and 3.7 months, respectively. Adverse events of grade 3 and/or 4 were observed in 36% patients. Thrombocytopenia of grade 3 or 4 was 12.9 and 3.2%. Grades 3 and 4 of leucopenia and anemia were 12.9 and 9.7%, respectively.

conclusionMM is effective and tolerable for MBC patients even after aggressive treatment with ATCV. MM is one treatment choice when patients have kept good PS and bone marrow function even after multiple regimens of chemotherapy.

Indexed as

AnthracyclineCapecitabineMetastatic breast cancerMethotrexateMitomycin CTaxaneVinorelbine

Identifiers

PMID26217553
PMCPMC4514730
OpenAlexW1749050490

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.