Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26988358›Full record

SynthesisBreast cancer research and treatment2016

A comparison of toxicity profiles between the lower and standard dose capecitabine in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Tomohiro F Nishijima, Maya Suzuki, Hyman B Muss

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

3 authors.

Tomohiro F NishijimaUNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, 170 Manning Drive, Campus Box 7305, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA. tomohiro.nishijima@unchealth.unc.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3773-7762
Maya SuzukiMemorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, 10065, USA.
Hyman B MussUNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, 170 Manning Drive, Campus Box 7305, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) bid × 14 days every 21 days (14/21) has been reported to have similar efficacy but more favorable toxicity profile than the approved dosage of 1250 mg/m(2). However, a dose-toxicity relationship of capecitabine in breast cancer patients has not been fully elucidated. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare a safety profile between capecitabine starting dose of 1000 and 1250 mg/m(2) bid. Studies were identified using PubMed, ASCO, and San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium abstract databases through December 2015. Eligible trials included phase II/III trials of capecitabine monotherapy at 1000 or 1250 mg/m(2) bid (14/21) for breast cancer patients that reported adequate safety data for all (grade 1-4) or high (grade 3-4) grade hand foot syndrome (HFS), diarrhea, fatigue, nausea, vomiting, stomatitis, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, or anemia, as well as dose reductions, treatment discontinuation or treatment-related deaths. The summary incidence was calculated using random-effects models. A total of 4833 patients from 34 trials were included. 1218 and 3615 patients were treated with capecitabine 1000 and 1250 mg/m(2) bid, respectively. A significantly lower incidence of dose reduction (15.9 vs. 39.0 %; P = 0.007), high-grade HFS (12.0 vs. 19.0 %; P = 0.01), diarrhea (5.3 vs. 9.1 %; P = 0.01), and neutropenia (1.8 vs. 7.3 %; P < 0.01), and all-grade neutropenia (5.8 vs. 25.4 %; P = 0.01) was seen in capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) compared to 1250 mg/m(2). Capecitabine monotherapy at 1000 mg/m(2) bid (14/21) has a clinically meaningful and significantly better toxicity profile compared to 1250 mg/m(2) bid (14/21).

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntimetabolites, AntineoplasticBreast NeoplasmsCapecitabineClinical Trials, Phase II as TopicClinical Trials, Phase III as TopicDose-Response Relationship, DrugFemaleHand-Foot SyndromeHumansRandom AllocationStomatitisTreatment OutcomeAntimetabolites, AntineoplasticCapecitabineCapecitabineLower doseMeta-analysisStandard doseSystematic reviewToxicity profile

Identifiers

PMID26988358
PMCPMC4988831

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.