Trial reportOncotarget2016
Fulvestrant 500 mg vs 250 mg in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive advanced breast cancer: a randomized, double-blind registrational trial in China.
Trial report in Oncotarget, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A meta-analysis of clinical benefit rates for fulvestrant 500 mg vs. alternative endocrine therapies for hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2019Pooled it
- Abemaciclib plus non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor or fulvestrant in women with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer: Final results of the randomized phase III MONARCH plus trial.Chinese medical journal · 2025Trial
- Options after progression on first-line CDK4/6 inhibitors in advanced breast cancer patients.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2025Article
- Revisiting Fulvestrant Dosing in Uncertain Economic Times.JCO global oncology · 2021Article
- Optimal duration of prior endocrine therapy predicts the efficacy of Fulvestrant in a real-world study for patients with hormone receptor-positive and HER2-negative advanced breast cancer.Cancer medicine · 2020Article
- Observational
- MONARCH plus: abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy in women with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer: the multinational randomized phase III study.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2020Article
- Efficacy and Safety of Fulvestrant 500mg in Hormone-receptor Positive Human Epidermal Receptor 2 Negative Advanced Breast Cancer: A Real-world Study in China.Journal of Cancer · 2020Article
- Metastatic breast cancer patients with lung or liver metastases should be distinguished before being treated with fulvestrant.Cancer medicine · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The international CONFIRM study showed that fulvestrant 500 mg improved progression-free survival (PFS) vs fulvestrant 250 mg in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive locally advanced/metastatic breast cancer (LA/MBC). In this randomized, double-blind study, postmenopausal Chinese women with ER-positive LA/MBC and progression after endocrine therapy received fulvestrant 500 mg (days 0, 14, 28, and every 28 days thereafter) or fulvestrant 250 mg (every 28 days). Consistency with the international study was assumed if the hazard ratio (HR) for comparison of PFS (primary endpoint) was < 1 (stratified log-rank test). The study was not powered to assess between-group differences.In total, 221 patients were randomized (fulvestrant 500 mg: n = 111; fulvestrant 250 mg: n = 110). Baseline characteristics were balanced. Median PFS was 8.0 months with fulvestrant 500 mg vs 4.0 months with 250 mg (HR = 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54-1.03; P = 0.078). PFS (HR; 95% CI) favored fulvestrant 500 mg in post-antiestrogen (0.86; 0.54-1.37) and post-aromatase inhibitor (0.65; 0.42-1.03) settings. No new safety considerations were observed. These results are consistent with the international CONFIRM study, supporting the superior clinical benefit of fulvestrant 500 mg in women with ER-positive LA/MBC experiencing progression following prior endocrine therapy.
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.