ArticleMolecular and clinical oncology2015
Efficacy of vinorelbine-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Article in Molecular and clinical oncology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
The present study aimed to compare the effects of vinorelbine-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy and vinorelbine-free regimens. A meta-analysis of all the relevant randomized controlled trials was performed to investigate the improvement in pathological complete response (pCR), overall response rate (ORR) and breast-conserving surgery (BCS). The PubMed and Embase databases were searched for relevant studies reporting randomized controlled trials comparing vinorelbine-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy with vinorelbine-free regimens until July 2013. Risk ratios/odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to estimate the association between vinorelbine in neoadjuvant chemotherapy and various efficacy outcomes. Fixed- or random-effect models were adopted to pool the data. Five eligible studies with a total of 1,495 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Compared to vinorelbine-free chemotherapy, vinorelbine-based regimens demonstrated no significant improvement in clinical outcomes including: pCR [relative risk (RR)=1.016; 95% CI, 0.738-1.399; P=0.922], ORR (RR=1.048; 95% CI, 0.969-1.133; P=0.239) and BCS (RR=1.764; 95% CI, 0.734-4.239; P=0.205). However, vinorelbine-based regimens were associated with a lower incidence of grade 3-4 alopecia (OR, 0.617; 95% CI, 0.448-0.848; P=0.003). In a hierarchical analysis for patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the proportion of subjects achieving pCR was significantly increased when HER2-amplified (RR=2.31; 95% CI, 1.20-4.43; P=0.01) and hormone receptor negative (RR=0.488; 95% CI, 0.263-0.908; P=0.023). The present review confirms that neoadjuvant chemotherapy vinorelbine-based regimens are unlikely to emerge as superior to pCR, ORR and BCS. Hierarchical analysis indicated that the HER2-amplified and hormone receptor-negative patients were significantly associated with a pathological response rate.
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.