ArticleTherapeutics and clinical risk management2020
Comparative Treatment Patterns and Outcomes of Fulvestrant versus Everolimus Plus Exemestane for Postmenopausal Metastatic Breast Cancer Resistant to Aromatase Inhibitors in Real-World Experience.
Article in Therapeutics and clinical risk management, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03695341 (Fulvestrant Versus Everolimus Plus Exemestane for Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer Resistant to Aromatase Inhibitors), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Fulvestrant Versus Everolimus Plus Exemestane for Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer Resistant to Aromatase Inhibitors: the Clinical Experience From Real -World
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Combined everolimus and endocrine therapy in advanced HR-positive, HER2-negative Chinese breast cancer patients: a retrospective study.Annals of translational medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFulvestrant (FUL) and the combination of everolimus and exemestane (EVE-EXE) were the options to treat hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients who were refractory to aromatase inhibitors (AIs). The practical knowledge of treatment patterns and outcomes between the two regimens is essential for improving treatment decisions.
methodsHR+/HER2- MBC patients, who were refractory to AI, were treated with FUL or EVE-EXE from June 2013 to June 2016 were included. Treatment patterns, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity were reported. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to minimize potential confounders.
resultsA total of 168 patients were enrolled. Of 168 patients, 124 patients were treated with FUL and 44 patients received EVE-EXE. Patients who were treated with EVE-EXE were younger, more likely to have visceral, liver, multiple sites of metastases, and had received more prior chemotherapy. After adjusting for propensity score matching (PSM), no significant difference in PFS was found between two groups (
conclusionA substantial difference in treatment patterns was observed between the two arms. Clinical outcomes were comparable after PSM. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT03695341 (May 14, 2018).
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.