ArticleSurgery open science2023
Efficacy and safety of utidelone plus capecitabine in advanced first-line therapy for metastatic breast cancer: A multicenter real-world study.
Article in Surgery open science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Utidelone exhibits favorable responses in refractory patients with advanced breast cancer.Translational cancer research · 2026Article
- Utidelone-associated chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: an evidence-stratified narrative review of mechanisms, risk identification, and management strategies.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Utidelone combined with anti‑angiogenic therapy for the treatment of anthracycline/taxane‑treated and endocrine‑resistant HROncology letters · 2025Article
- Efficacy and safety of utidelone in pretreated patients with metastatic breast cancer in China: a multicenter, real-world study.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2025Article
- Real world analysis of the efficacy and safety of eribulin compared to utidelone in combination with capecitabine for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer.Cancer cell international · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of utidelone plus capecitabine for advanced first-line versus second-line or above therapy in metastatic breast cancer patients who had previously received anthracycline and taxane. At the same time, we compared the efficacy of utidelone plus capecitabine and vinorelbine plus cisplatin in advanced first-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Patients and methods: A retrospective cohort of 11 patients with metastatic breast cancer previously treated with anthracycline and taxane (including neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies) for advanced first-line with utidelone plus capecitabine, 32 patients treated with second-line or above, and 60 patients with vinorelbine plus cisplatin between October 2011 and August 2022 was collected. The first and second groups were treated with utidelone plus capecitabine, and the third group was treated with vinorelbine plus cisplatin. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), and secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and treatment safety. Results: By 03/31/2023, median PFS reached 11.70 months (95 % CI 0.093-0.141) in utidelone plus capecitabine group in the advanced first-line therapy, compared to 5.60 months (95 % CI 0.025-0.079) in the second-line or above therapy [HR 0.42, (95 % CI 0.226-0.787), P = 0.0077]. In utidelone plus capecitabine, the median OS was not reached in the advanced first-line therapy, with a mean overall survival of 23.16 months (95 % CI 0.198-0.265); whereas the median OS in the second-line or above therapy was 19.50 months (95 % CI 0.083-0.307), with a mean overall survival of 16.89 months (95 % CI 0.136-0.202) [HR 0.26, (95 % CI 0.098-0.678), P = 0.0495]. The ORR for advanced first-line therapy was 27.27 % (95%CI 0.060, 0.610) compared with 15.63 % (95%CI 0.053, 0.328) for second-line or above. In advanced first-line therapy, utidelone plus capecitabine was superior to vinorelbine plus cisplatin with a median PFS of 6.12 months (95 % CI 0.051-0.072) [HR 0.49, (95 % CI 0.286-0.839), P = 0.0291]. Compared with utidelone plus capecitabine, the median OS in vinorelbine plus cisplatin advanced first-line therapy group was 35.37 months (95 % CI 0.258-0.449), and the mean overall survival was 40.79 months (95 % CI 0.315-0.501) [HR 0.54, (95 % CI 0.188-1.568), P = 0.2587]. The ORR for vinorelbine plus cisplatin was 18.33 % (95 % CI 0.095, 0.304). The most common adverse events in our study were neurological toxicity, hand-foot syndrome, hematological toxicity, gastrointestinal toxicity, and hepatic and renal function abnormalities. There were no deaths due to adverse effects during the utidelone plus capecitabine treatment period. Conclusions: In MBC, advanced first-line therapy with utidelone plus capecitabine resulted in more favorable PFS, OS, and ORR than second-line or above therapy. In advanced first-line therapy, utidelone plus capecitabine had superior PFS, and ORR compared with vinorelbine plus cisplatin. This study concludes that utidelone plus capecitabine is a more valuable chemotherapy option in advanced first-line MBC.
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.