ArticleChinese medical journal2025
Effect of Huaier granule on prognosis of breast cancer: A single-center propensity score matching retrospective study.
Article in Chinese medical journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Huaier Aqueous Extract Combined with Gefitinib Promotes ACSL4-Dependent Ferroptosis and Overcomes Gefitinib Resistance in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.Current medical science · 2026Article
- Treatment of High-Risk Idiopathic Membranous Nephropathy with Huaier Granules and RASi: A Case Series.International medical case reports journal · 2026Article
- Traditional Chinese medicine in the treatment of breast Cancer.Molecular cancer · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHuaier granule is an important medicinal fungus extract widely used in cancer treatment. Previous retrospective studies have reported its effectiveness in breast cancer patients, but the imbalanced baseline characteristics of participants could have biased the results. Therefore, this retrospective study aimed to examine the efficacy of Huaier granule on the prognosis of breast cancer patients.
methodsIn this single-center cohort study, breast cancer patients diagnosed and treated at the Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine between 2009 and 2017 were selected. The data were retrospectively analyzed and divided into two groups according to whether the patients received Huaier granules. The propensity score matching (PSM) method was used to eliminate selection bias. The disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) for these groups were compared using the Kaplan-Meier method and the Cox regression.
resultsThis study included 214 early invasive breast cancer patients, 107 in the Huaier group and 107 in the control group. In the Kaplan-Meier analysis, the 2-year and 5-year DFS rates were significantly different in the Huaier group and control group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.495; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.257-0.953; P = 0.023). The 2-year and 5-year OS rates were also significantly different (HR, 0.308; 95% CI, 0.148-0.644; P = 0.001). On multivariable Cox regression, Huaier granule was associated with improved DFS (HR, 0.440; 95% CI, 0.223-0.868; P = 0.018) and OS (HR, 0.236; 95% CI, 0.103-0.540; P = 0.001).
conclusionIn this retrospective study, Huaier granules improved the DFS and OS of early invasive breast cancer patients, providing real-world evidence for further prospective studies on treating breast cancer with Huaier granules.
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.