Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31079343›Full record

SynthesisBreast cancer (Tokyo, Japan)2019

A meta-analysis of clinical benefit rates for fulvestrant 500 mg vs. alternative endocrine therapies for hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer.

John F R Robertson, Zefei Jiang, Angelo Di Leo, Shinji Ohno, Kathleen I Pritchard, Matthew Ellis, Ian Bradbury, Christine Campbell

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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 7 institutions in 6 countries.

John F R RobertsonDivision of Breast Surgery, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham City Hospital, Hucknall Road, Nottingham, NG5 1PB, UK. John.Robertson@nottingham.ac.uk.
Zefei JiangDepartment of Breast Cancer, Affiliated Hospital of Academy of Military Medical Sciences, No. 8 Dongda Street, Fengtai District, Beijing, 100071, China.
Angelo Di Leo"Sandro Pitigliani" Medical Oncology Department, Hospital of Prato, Azienda USL Toscana Centro, Piazza Dell'ospedale 2, 59100, Prato, Italy.
Shinji OhnoBreast Oncology Center, Cancer Institute Hospital, 3-8-31 Ariake, Koto-ku, Tokyo, 135-8550, Japan.
Kathleen I PritchardSunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, 2075 Bayview Ave, Toronto, ON, M4N 3M5, Canada.
Matthew EllisLester and Sue Smith Breast Center, Baylor College of Medicine, 6620 S Main St #1350, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Ian BradburyFrontier Science, Grampian View, Kincraig, Kingussie, PH21 1NA, UK.
Christine CampbellFrontier Science, Grampian View, Kincraig, Kingussie, PH21 1NA, UK.
Frontier Agriculture (United Kingdom) · GBAcademy of Military Medical Sciences · CNBaylor College of Medicine · USHospital of Prato · ITNottingham City Hospital · GBThe Cancer Institute Hospital · JPUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFulvestrant, a selective estrogen receptor degrader, is approved for first- and second-line treatment of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer (ABC).

methodsMeta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating fulvestrant 500 mg in postmenopausal hormone receptor-positive ABC, to evaluate differences in clinical benefit rate (CBR; proportion of patients experiencing best overall response of complete response, partial response, or stable disease for ≥ 24 weeks) between fulvestrant 500 mg and comparator endocrine therapies. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for CBR were calculated; fixed effects (FE) models were constructed (first- and second-line data, alone and combined).

resultsSix RCTs were included. Four studies evaluated fulvestrant 500 mg vs. fulvestrant 250 mg; two evaluated fulvestrant 500 mg vs. anastrozole 1 mg. In total, 1054 and 534 patients were included (first- and second-line treatment, respectively). Analysis of OR and 95% CI of CBR by therapy line favored fulvestrant 500 mg vs. comparator therapy. Assessing all results combined in the FE model indicated significant improvement in CBR with fulvestrant 500 mg vs. comparator treatments (OR 1.33; 95% CI 1.13-1.57; p = 0.001). Restricting the FE model to therapy line demonstrated significant improvement in CBR vs. comparator treatments (OR 1.33; 95% CI 1.02-1.73; p = 0.035) for first-line, and a trend to improvement vs. comparator treatments (OR 1.27; 95% CI 0.90-1.79; p = 0.174) for second-line.

conclusionsIn postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive ABC, fulvestrant 500 mg first-line was associated with significantly greater CBR (more patients benefiting from treatment) vs. comparator endocrine therapy.

Indexed as

Complementary TherapiesAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnastrozoleAromatase InhibitorsBreast NeoplasmsEstrogen Receptor AntagonistsFemaleFulvestrantHumansMiddle AgedPostmenopauseRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReceptors, EstrogenRemission InductionAnastrozoleAromatase InhibitorsEstrogen Receptor AntagonistsFulvestrantReceptors, EstrogenAdvanced breast cancerClinical benefit rateFulvestrantHormone receptor-positiveMeta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID31079343
PMCPMC6821663
OpenAlexW2944341352

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.