ArticleOncotarget2017
A nation-wide multicenter 10-year (1999-2008) retrospective study of chemotherapy in Chinese breast cancer patients.
Article in Oncotarget, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Incidence of peripheral neuropathy associated with eribulin mesylate versus vinorelbine in patients with metastatic breast cancer: sub-group analysis of a randomized phase III study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2020Trial
- Profile, treatment patterns, and influencing factors of anthracycline use in breast cancer patients in China: A nation-wide multicenter study.Cancer medicine · 2021Article
- Treatment patterns for adjuvant docetaxel-based chemotherapy in early-stage breast cancer in China: A pooled retrospective analysis of four observational studies.Chinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Little information is available on the evolvement of chemotherapeutic regimens administered to Chinese females with breast cancer. We retrospectively analyzed demographic, pathological and chemotherapeutic data of 4211 breast cancer patients, who were randomly selected from representative hospitals of 7 traditional areas in China between 1999 and 2008. A total of 3271 cases (77.7%) received adjuvant chemotherapy, 558 (13.3%) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and 392 (9.3%) received chemotherapy for metastatic disease. In the adjuvant setting, higher percentage of patients with younger age, advanced stage, hormone receptor (HR) negative or HER2 positive disease received chemotherapy (P<0.001). The use of CMF (cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil) in adjuvant chemotherapy decreased significantly from 1999 to 2008, while the use of anthracycline-based (without taxanes) regimens increased in the first 5 years, followed by increased use of regimens containing both anthracyclines and taxanes. Women with locally advanced disease received more neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The percentage of neoadjuvant regimens containing anthracyclines and taxanes increased during this period. In first-line chemotherapy of metastatic disease, 87.5% of cases received combined chemotherapy, and platinum-based regimens were also major choices aside from anthracyclines and taxanes. In second-line chemotherapy, 80.3% received combined chemotherapy, and the combination of taxane and platinum was the most common choice. In conclusion, major changes have taken place in breast cancer chemotherapy in China during this 10-year interval, which reflected the incorporation of key evidence and guidelines into Chinese medical practice.
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.