ArticleNPJ breast cancer2021
Meta-analyses of visceral versus non-visceral metastatic hormone receptor-positive breast cancer treated by endocrine monotherapies.
Article in NPJ breast cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Palbociclib treatment in patients with HR+/HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer and visceral metastasis: A systematic literature review.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2025Pooled it
- Quantitative evaluation of the efficacy and safety profiles of two types of targeted inhibitors combined with endocrine therapy in ER+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2024Pooled it
- Early versus deferred use of CDK4/6 inhibitors in advanced breast cancer: circulating tumor DNA analysis of a randomized phase 3 trial.Nature medicine · 2025Trial
- Fulvestrant Versus Anastrozole in Endocrine Therapy-Naïve Women With Hormone Receptor-Positive Advanced Breast Cancer: Final Overall Survival in the Phase III FALCON Trial.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2025Trial
- Validity, reliability, responsiveness, and clinically meaningful change threshold estimates of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network-Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast Cancer Symptom Index (NFBSI-16).Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2024Trial
- Clinical Efficacy and Whole-Exome Sequencing of Liquid Biopsies in a Phase IB/II Study of Bazedoxifene and Palbociclib in Advanced Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2022Trial
- VERONICA: Randomized Phase II Study of Fulvestrant and Venetoclax in ER-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer Post-CDK4/6 Inhibitors - Efficacy, Safety, and Biomarker Results.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2022Trial
- Ribociclib plus letrozole in subgroups of special clinical interest with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer: Subgroup analysis of the phase IIIb CompLEEment-1 trial.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2022Trial
- New perspectives on endocrine therapy suitability for hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer in clinical practice.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2026Review
- Survival Following CDK4/6 Inhibitor Therapy for Hormone Receptor-Positive, ERBB2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Article
- Recent progress of CDK4/6 inhibitors' current practice in breast cancer.Cancer gene therapy · 2024Review
- Article
- CDK4/6 inhibitors versus weekly paclitaxel for treatment of ER+/HER2- advanced breast cancer with impending or established visceral crisis.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2023Article
- Cyclin-Dependent Kinase 4/6 Inhibitors for Treatment of Hormone Receptor-Positive, ERBB2-Negative Breast Cancer: A Review.JAMA oncology · 2023Review
- Real-World Evaluation of Disease Progression After CDK 4/6 Inhibitor Therapy in Patients With Hormone Receptor-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer.The oncologist · 2023Article
- Dose escalation and expansion cohorts in patients with advanced breast cancer in a Phase I study of the CDK7-inhibitor samuraciclib.Nature communications · 2023Article
- New classification for advanced breast cancer patients experiencing disease progression during salvage treatment: a single-center retrospective cohort study.Annals of translational medicine · 2022Article
- Real-World Effectiveness of Palbociclib Plus Letrozole vs Letrozole Alone for Metastatic Breast Cancer With Lung or Liver Metastases: Flatiron Database Analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Experimental models of endocrine responsive breast cancer: strengths, limitations, and use.Cancer drug resistance (Alhambra, Calif.) · 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
9 authors at 8 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Endocrine therapy (ET) is recommended as first-line therapy for the majority of patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor 2-negative advanced breast cancer (ABC); however, the efficacy of ET in patients with visceral metastases (VM) versus patients whose disease is limited to non-visceral metastases (non-VM) is debated. Meta-analyses including available data from randomised controlled trials of first- and second-line endocrine monotherapies for patients with HR+ ABC were performed to address this question. In one and two-stage meta-analyses, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), clinical benefit rate (CBR) and duration of clinical benefit (DoCB) outcomes were analysed. In the first-line meta-analysis (seven trials; n = 1988) tamoxifen and fulvestrant significantly improved PFS, OS and CBR for patients with non-VM versus those whose disease included VM. The most substantial hazard ratios were observed for fulvestrant 500 mg; 0.56 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45-0.70) and 0.55 (95% CI 0.42-0.72) for PFS and OS, respectively. In the second-line meta-analysis (seven trials; n = 2324), all ET combined was more effective (in terms of PFS, OS and DoCB) for non-VM versus VM. In both meta-analyses, patients with non-liver VM had better clinical outcomes than patients with liver VM for all types of ET. Patients whose disease included non-VM sites had better clinical outcomes with endocrine monotherapy compared with patients whose disease included VM. These findings may facilitate better informed treatment decision-making.
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.