Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29302858›Full record

Trial reportBreast cancer (Tokyo, Japan)2018

Subgroup analysis of patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer in the second-line setting from a phase 3, open-label, randomized study of eribulin mesilate versus capecitabine.

Xavier Pivot, Seock Ah Im, Matthew Guo, Frederik Marmé

Open access · hybridAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

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

4 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Xavier PivotPaul Strauss Cancer Center, 3 rue de la porte de l'hôpital , BP30042-67065, Strasbourg, France. xpivot@strasbourg.unicancer.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3689-5013
Seock Ah ImSeoul National University Hospital, Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Matthew GuoOncology Business Group, Eisai Inc., Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA.
Frederik MarméNational Centre for Tumour Diseases, Heidelberg and Department of Gynecologic Oncology, University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Eisai (United States) · USHeidelberg University · DEHôpital Civil, Strasbourg · FRSeoul National University Hospital · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This post hoc subgroup analysis of a large phase 3 study compared the efficacy and safety of eribulin versus capecitabine in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative metastatic breast cancer who received second-line treatment. In the phase 3 study, women with advanced/metastatic breast cancer and ≤ 3 prior chemotherapies were randomized 1:1 to eribulin mesilate 1.4 mg/m

Indexed as

AdultAgedAntimetabolites, AntineoplasticAntimitotic AgentsBreastBreast NeoplasmsCapecitabineDisease-Free SurvivalErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesFemaleFuransHumansKetonesMiddle AgedPolyether PolyketidesTreatment OutcomeAntimetabolites, AntineoplasticAntimitotic AgentsCapecitabineERBB2 protein, humanErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinaseseribulinFuransKetonesPolyether PolyketidesCapecitabineEribulinMetastatic breast cancerOverall survivalSubgroup analysis

Identifiers

PMID29302858
PMCPMC5906517
OpenAlexW2782001483

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.