ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022
Efficacy and Safety of Capecitabine for Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: A Meta-Analysis.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Capecitabine-based chemotherapy in early-stage triple-negative breast cancer: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Pooled it
- Health Literacy and Capecitabine Adherence in a Remote Monitoring Pilot Trial for Breast Cancer: Post Hoc Exploratory Analysis.JMIR formative research · 2026Observational
- Chemotherapeutic efficacy of nano formulation capecitabine@SNPs and gamma radiation: a novel metronomic approach for breast cancer treatment.Drug delivery and translational research · 2026Article
- An Overview of Emerging Trends in Targeted Therapy of Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.International journal of breast cancer · 2026Review
- In silico identification of bilobetin and ginsenoside as dual CK2 and ULK2 inhibitors targeting triple-negative breast cancer.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Recent Advances in Drug Discovery for Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Treatment.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is the most aggressive subtype of breast cancer with limited treatment options and poor prognosis. Capecitabine, as a novel adjuvant chemotherapy for TNBCs, remains controversial. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of capecitabine for early-stage TNBCs combined with neo-/adjuvant chemotherapy. Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases updated on Mar 18, 2022 for relevant RCTs. In all, 11 RCTs with 5,175 patients were included. We used hazard ratios (HRs) and odds ratios (ORs) to assess the differences between disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events. Results: Our study demonstrated significance differences in both DFS and OS (DFS: HR=0.77; 95% CI 0.68-0.86; OS: HR=0.73, 95% CI 0.63-0.85). In subgroup analysis, the lower dosage group showed higher DFS (HR=0.79, 95% CI 0.69-0.91), higher frequency (HR=0.72, 95%CI 0.62-0.83), and adjuvant chemotherapy (HR=0.74, 95% CI 0.65-0.84). However, capecitabine was also associated with a higher risk of diarrhea (OR=3.10, 95% CI 2.32-4.15), hand-foot syndrome (OR=25.79, 95% CI 15.32-43.42), and leukopenia (OR=2.08, 95% CI 1.13-3.84). Conclusion: The addition of capecitabine to early-stage TNBC patients receiving standard adjuvant chemotherapy showed significant DFS and OS improvement with tolerable adverse events. The lower dosage and higher frequency of capecitabine combined with adjuvant chemotherapy demonstrated a better survival outcome.
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.