ArticleOncoTargets and therapy2015
Comparative study on individual aromatase inhibitors on cardiovascular safety profile: a network meta-analysis.
Article in OncoTargets and therapy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Differential impact of tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitors on thrombin generation: the prospective HEMOBREAST cohort.Blood advances · 2022Trial
- Adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy and early markers for cardiovascular disease in breast cancer survivors.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2022Article
- Aromatase Inhibitors and Risk of Metabolic and Cardiovascular Adverse Effects in Breast Cancer Patients-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Network-guided prediction of aromatase inhibitor response in breast cancer.PLoS computational biology · 2019Article
- Comparative study on individual aromatase inhibitors on cardiovascular safety profile: misleading analysis and doubtful methodology.OncoTargets and therapy · 2015Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The third-generation aromatase inhibitors (AIs: anastrozole, letrozole, and exemestane) have now become standard adjuvant endocrine treatment for postmenopausal estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer complementing chemotherapy and surgery. Because of the absence of direct head-to-head comparisons of these AIs, an indirect comparison is needed for individual treatment choice. In this network systemic assessment, the cardiovascular (CV) side effects in using anastrozole, letrozole, and exemestane based on original studies on AIs vs placebo or tamoxifen were compared. We integrated all available direct and indirect evidences. The odds ratio (OR) of severe CV events for indirect comparisons between exemestane and anastrozole was 1.41 (95% confidence interval [CI] =0.49-2.78), letrozole and anastrozole was 1.80 (95% CI =0.40-3.92), and letrozole and exemestane was 1.46 (95% CI =0.34-3.4). OR of subgroup risk for AIs and tamoxifen were all >1 except for thrombolism risk subgroup. The results showed that the total and severe CV risk ranking is letrozole, exemestane, and anastrozole in descending order. None of the AIs showed advantages in CV events than tamoxifen except for thromboembolism event incidence.
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.