ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2022
The prognosis and risk factors for capecitabine maintenance treatment in metastatic breast cancer: a retrospective comparative cohort study.
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Maintenance treatment following efficient chemotherapy can improve the treatment outcomes of patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). However, there are no studies for identifying the prognostic factors for patients who could benefit from capecitabine maintenance. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the prognosis and risk factors of capecitabine maintenance therapy and analysed the circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) markers that may be related to the treatment response. Methods: This study recruited 482 consecutive patients with MBC who achieved clinical benefit from capecitabine-based chemotherapy from 2011 to 2019. A total of 256 patients received subsequent capecitabine maintenance therapy. The baseline clinical factors included age at diagnosis, menopause, neoadjuvant therapy, estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status and subtypes, prior treatment lines, and prior capecitabine-based treatment response. Treatment outcome (progression-free survival, PFS) was assessed by imaging tools according to RSCIST 1.1 standard during the first two treatment cycles and every 3 weeks thereafter. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were used to analysethe association between capecitabine maintenance treatment and prognosis. Results: The median PFS of patients receiving capecitabine maintenance treatment was 21.7 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 15.1-36.3 months]. Capecitabine maintenance showed similar effects as endocrine maintenance or anti-HER2 therapy in hormone receptor (HR)-positive or HER2-positive patients, with adjusted HR of 1.17 (95% CI: 0.81-1.71, P=0.40). In patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), capecitabine maintenance showed a marginal benefit in PFS. Compared to late-line (≥2) capecitabine maintenance, first-line capecitabine maintenance significantly prolonged median PFS. Compared to other HR/HER2 subtypes, patients with HR-positive and HER2-positive subtypes significantly benefited from capecitabine maintenance treatment. Analysis of ctDNA revealed that among patients receiving capecitabine maintenance, Conclusions: Capecitabine maintenance treatment is associated with longer PFS in patients with MBC, especially those receiving first-line capecitabine-based chemotherapy and those with HR positivity/HER2 positivity.
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.