ArticleScientific reports2016
Network Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Neoadjuvant Endocrine Therapy for Postmenopausal, HR-Positive Breast Cancer.
Article in Scientific reports, 2016. 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.
- Breast-conserving surgery is an appropriate procedure for centrally located breast cancer: a population-based retrospective cohort study.BMC surgery · 2023Article
- A rapid reduction in tumor size by cyclin-dependent kinase inhibition in hormone receptor-positive postpartum breast cancer: a case report of two patients and a review of the literature.Annals of translational medicine · 2022Article
- Neoadjuvant endocrine therapy: A potential strategy for ER-positive breast cancer.World journal of clinical cases · 2019Review
- Efficacy and acceptability of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy in patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer: A network meta-analysis.Journal of cellular physiology · 2019Review
- Observational
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In clinical practice, it is necessary to define an optimal choice from many different therapeutic regimens. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) for breast cancer patients. Randomized clinical trials were included. Nine studies comprising 2133 patients were included in the final analysis. Network meta-analysis showed that everolimus plus letrozole was more easily accepted by patients than exemestane (≥20wks) (odds ratio (OR): 856697.02, 95% confidence intervals (95%CI): 1.88 to 87242934...); exemestane (≥20wks) had worse acceptability than letrozole (OR: 0.00, 95%CI: 0.00 to 0.98). Letrozole produced a better clinical objective response (COR) than tamoxifen (OR: 1.99, 95%CI: 1.04 to 3.80). The incidence of fatigue between the anastrozole plus gefitinib group and the everolimus plus letrozole group was significantly different (OR: 0.08, 95%CI: 0.01 to 0.83). The exemestane (<20wks) plus celecoxib group had fewer hot flushes than others. Ranking showed the everolimus plus letrozole was most likely rank first in comparisons of COR and acceptability, and had a 64% possibility to rank first after stochastic multi-criteria acceptability analysis. In conclusion, our study showed that letrozole plus everolimus is the most effective treatment for postmenopausal, hormone receptor-positive breast cancer in the neoadjuvant setting.
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.