Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27445497›Full record

ArticleOncoTargets and therapy2016

A meta-analysis of combination therapy versus single-agent therapy in anthracycline- and taxane-pretreated metastatic breast cancer: results from nine randomized Phase III trials.

Liang Xu, Xiaobo Wu, Chun Hu, Zhiying Zhang, Le Zhang, Shujing Liang, Yingchun Xu, Fengchun Zhang

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in OncoTargets and therapy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. 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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Liang XuDepartment of Oncology, Suzhou Kowloon Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Suzhou; Department of Oncology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai.
Xiaobo WuPrevention and Cure Center of Breast Disease, Third Hospital of Nanchang, Nanchang.
Chun HuDepartment of Oncology, Suzhou Kowloon Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Suzhou; Department of Oncology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai.
Zhiying ZhangGraduate School, Xuzhou Medical College, Xuzhou.
Le ZhangDepartment of Oncology, Suzhou Kowloon Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Suzhou; Department of Oncology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai.
Shujing LiangDepartment of Oncology, Suzhou Kowloon Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Suzhou; Department of Oncology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai.
Yingchun XuDepartment of Oncology, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
Fengchun ZhangDepartment of Oncology, Suzhou Kowloon Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Suzhou; Department of Oncology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai.
Renji Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nowadays, the philosophy of treating metastatic breast cancer (MBC) is slowly evolving. Especially for the anthracycline- and taxane-pretreated MBC patients, no standard therapy exists in this setting. Whether to choose doublet agents or single agent as salvage treatment remains fiercely debated. Thus, we conducted a meta-analysis to resolve this problem. Databases including PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library were searched for Phase III randomized clinical trials (published before August 2015) comparing the efficacy and adverse effects between the combination therapy and single-agent therapy in anthracycline- and taxane-pretreated MBC patients. The primary end point was the overall survival (OS), and the secondary end points were the progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR), and grade 3 or 4 toxicities. The pooled hazard ratio (HR) and pooled risk ratio (RR) were used to evaluate the efficacy. Analyses were also performed to estimate the side effects and safety of both groups. In all, nine eligible randomized clinical trials were included in this meta-analysis. Improvements were proven in the doublet agents group on OS (HR 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84-0.96, P=0.002), PFS (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.76-0.88, P<0.001), and ORR (RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.34-2.21, P<0.001). Notably, subgroup analysis failed to favor the targeted agent-based combination in terms of OS (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.89-1.31, P=0.365), PFS (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.88-1.35, P=0.433), and ORR (RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.69-3.71, P=0.278) compared with single agent. In addition, although more hematological and gastrointestinal toxicities were observed in the doublet agents group, they were acceptable and manageable. Taken together, when compared with single-agent therapy, doublet agents should be considered a treatment option because of the superior efficacy and the manageable safety profile for the prior anthracycline- and taxane-treated MBC patients.

Indexed as

anthracyclinesbreast cancerchemotherapycombination therapytoxicity

Identifiers

PMID27445497
PMCPMC4938138
OpenAlexW2472960384

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.