SynthesisMedicine2019
The efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant buparlisib for breast cancer: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and Safety of Phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase Inhibitors for Patients with Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Current cancer drug targets · 2024Pooled it
- Targeting Breast Cancer: An Overlook on Current Strategies.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Addressing the Reciprocal Crosstalk between the AR and the PI3K/AKT/mTOR Signaling Pathways for Prostate Cancer Treatment.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Solid Tumors and Kinase Inhibition: Management and Therapy Efficacy Evolution.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- A Long Way to Go: A Scenario for Clinical Trials of PI3K Inhibitors in Treating Cancer.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe efficacy of neoadjuvant buparlisib for breast cancer remains controversial. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the influence of neoadjuvant buparlisib versus placebo for breast cancer.
methodsWe search PubMed, EMbase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases through May 2019 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant buparlisib versus placebo for breast cancer. This meta-analysis is performed using the random-effect model.
resultsFour RCTs are included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with control group for breast cancer, neoadjuvant buparlisib can substantially reduce progressive disease (risk ratios [RR] = 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.52-0.82; P = .0003) and improve stable disease (RR = 1.29; 95% CI = 1.02-1.64; P = .04), but has no notable influence on overall response rate (RR = 1.32; 95% CI = 0.84-2.06; P = .22), clinical benefit rate (RR = 1.06; 95% CI = 0.79-1.43; P = .69). Neoadjuvant buparlisib results in the increase in adverse grade 3/4 adverse events including increased alanine aminotransferase (ALT) (RR = 11.87; 95% CI = 5.65-24.90; P < .00001), increased aspartate aminotransferase (AST) (RR = 6.50; 95% CI = 4.14-10.21; P < .00001) and hyperglycaemia (RR = 36.65; 95% CI = 10.44-128.68; P < .00001), as well as serious adverse events (RR = 1.47; 95% CI = 1.23-1.76; P < .0001) compared to placebo. Deaths is found to be similar between two groups (RR = 0.88; 95% CI = 0.75-1.04; P = .13).
conclusionsNeoadjuvant buparlisib may provide some efficacy for breast cancer, but leads to the increase in serious adverse events.
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.