Trial reportMedical oncology (Northwood, London, England)2015
Efficacy and safety of pirarubicin plus capecitabine versus pirarubicin plus cyclophosphamide in Chinese node-negative breast cancer patients: a 4-year open-label, randomized, controlled study.
Trial report in Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 4 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Capecitabine for hormone receptor-positive versus hormone receptor-negative breast cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Clinical Value of Capecitabine-Based Combination Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Early Breast Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Oncology research · 2017Pooled it
- Pooled it
- The Clinical Value of Chemotherapy Combined With Capecitabine in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer-A Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Review
- Ki-67 index, progesterone receptor expression, histologic grade and tumor size in predicting breast cancer recurrence risk: A consecutive cohort study.Cancer communications (London, England) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of adjuvant chemotherapy with pirarubicin plus capecitabine (AX regimen) in Chinese node-negative breast cancer (BCa) patients. Two hundred eighty Chinese pT1-2N0M0 BCa patients under 70 years of age were equally and randomly assigned to receive four cycles of adjuvant therapy with the AX regimen or pirarubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC regimen) between January 2010 and May 2011. End points included overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), chemotherapy-induced toxicities, and quality of life (QoL). The 4-year DFS (AX vs. AC, 93.6 vs. 92.9 %, P = 0.761) and OS (97.1 vs. 96.4 %, P = 0.965) were similar between the two treatment arms. The AX group, compared to the AC group, experienced significantly less frequent grade III/IV vomiting (11.4 vs. 26.4 %, P < 0.001), whereas the incidence of other grade III/IV chemotherapy-associated toxicities was comparable between the two groups (all P values >0.05). Use of the AX regimen was associated with significantly higher QoL scores in the domains of physical, role, and social functions than the AC regimen (P values <0.05), although the two regimens were similar in the domains of emotional and cognitive functions (all P values >0.05). In comparison with the AC regimen, AX adjuvant chemotherapy is equally beneficial for node-negative BCa patients younger than 70 years with respect to OS and DFS. The AX regimen is primarily advantageous over the AC regimen based on less frequent severe toxicities and better health-related QoL.
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.