Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35957836›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in endocrinology2022

Addition of Capecitabine to Adjuvant Chemotherapy May be the Most Effective Strategy for Patients With Early-Stage Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis of 9 Randomized Controlled Trials.

Zhiyang Li, Jiehua Zheng, Zeqi Ji, Lingzhi Chen, Jinyao Wu, Juan Zou, Yiyuan Liu, Weixun Lin, Jiehui Cai, Yaokun Chen and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in endocrinology, 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 43% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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

12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Zhiyang LiDepartment of Breast, The First People's Hospital of Shao Guan, Shaoguan, China.
Jiehua ZhengDepartment of Breast, The First People's Hospital of Shao Guan, Shaoguan, China.
Zeqi JiDepartment of Breast, The First People's Hospital of Shao Guan, Shaoguan, China.
Lingzhi ChenDepartment of Breast, The First People's Hospital of Shao Guan, Shaoguan, China.
Jinyao WuDepartment of Breast, The First People's Hospital of Shao Guan, Shaoguan, China.
Juan ZouDepartment of Breast, The First People's Hospital of Shao Guan, Shaoguan, China.
Yiyuan LiuDepartment of Breast, The First People's Hospital of Shao Guan, Shaoguan, China.
Weixun LinDepartment of Breast, The First People's Hospital of Shao Guan, Shaoguan, China.
Jiehui CaiDepartment of Breast, The First People's Hospital of Shao Guan, Shaoguan, China.
Yaokun ChenDepartment of Breast, The First People's Hospital of Shao Guan, Shaoguan, China.
Yexi ChenDepartment of Breast, The First People's Hospital of Shao Guan, Shaoguan, China.
Hai LuDepartment of Thyroid, Breast and Hernia Surgery, The Second Affifiliated Hospital of Shantou University Medical College, Shantou, China.
Shantou University · CNShaoguan Railway Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Objective: Previous studies determined the therapeutic effects of capecitabine-based chemotherapy regimens on early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). However, the optimal strategy of capecitabine-based chemotherapy remains uncertain. We conducted this network meta-analysis to address this issue. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Registry of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to retrieve eligible studies published before September 2021. Two independent reviewers extracted information from eligible studies using a pre-designed data extraction sheet. The primary outcome included disease-free survival, and the second outcome showed overall survival and adverse events. Direct meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4, and Bayesian network analysis was performed using R version 3.6.1 with the "gemtc" and "rjags" packages. Results: Nine studies involving 3661 TNBC patients met the selection criteria. The network meta-analysis suggested that the addition of capecitabine to adjuvant chemotherapy achieved a significantly longer disease-free (HR = 0.66, 95% CrI = 0.49 to 0.86) and overall survival time (HR = 0.60, 95% CrI = 0.43 to 0.83) than standard chemotherapy. All comparisons did not achieve statistical significance. The addition of capecitabine to adjuvant chemotherapy was the most effective treatment for improving disease-free (81.24%) and overall survival (78.46%) times, and the replacement of capecitabine to adjuvant chemotherapy was the safest regime. Conclusions: Based on available evidence, capecitabine-based chemotherapy benefits TNBC patients, and the addition of capecitabine with adjuvant chemotherapy was the most effective regime. In contrast, the replacement of capecitabine to adjuvant chemotherapy was the safest regime. More studies of high quality and large scale are needed to confirm our findings.

Indexed as

CapecitabineTriple Negative Breast NeoplasmsBayes TheoremChemotherapy, AdjuvantHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicCapecitabineadjuvant chemotherapycapecitabineneoadjuvant chemotherapynetwork meta-analysistriple-negative breast cancer

Identifiers

PMID35957836
PMCPMC9358934
OpenAlexW4285007403

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.