ArticleThe oncologist2024
Efficacy of Single-Agent Chemotherapy in Endocrine Therapy-Refractory Metastatic Invasive Lobular Carcinoma.
Article in The oncologist, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Characteristics and Survival Outcomes of Metastatic Invasive Lobular and Ductal Carcinoma.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: metastatic patterns and treatment modalities-a review.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHormone receptor (HR)-positive, HER2-negative metastatic invasive lobular breast cancer (mILC) is distinct from invasive ductal cancer (IDC) in clinicopathologic and molecular characteristics, impacting its response to systemic therapy. While endocrine therapy (ET) combined with targeted therapies has shown efficacy in ET-sensitive mILC, data on chemotherapy in ET-refractory mILC remain limited. We investigated the efficacy of single-agent capecitabine (CAP) versus taxanes (TAX) in ET-refractory HR+ HER2-negative patients with mILC. MATERIALS AND
methodsUsing data from the MD Anderson prospectively collected breast cancer database, we identified patients with HR+ HER2-negative mILC who received prior ET and first-time chemotherapy in the metastatic setting. We compared outcomes between 173 CAP-treated and 96 TAX-treated patients.
resultsCAP-treated patients had significantly better median progression-free survival (PFS) than TAX-treated patients (8.8 vs 5.0 months, HR 0.63, P < .001). Overall survival (OS) did not differ significantly between the groups (42.7 vs 36.6 months for CAP vs TAX, respectively, HR 0.84, P = .241). Multivariate analyses for PFS and OS revealed better outcomes in subjects with fewer metastatic sites and those exposed to more lines of ET. Additionally, Black patients showed worse OS outcomes compared to White patients (HR 2.46; P = .001).
conclusionIn ET-refractory HR+ HER2-negative mILC, single-agent CAP demonstrated superior PFS compared to TAX. Our findings highlight the potential benefit of CAP in this patient subset, warranting further investigation through prospective trials.
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.