Observational studyThe oncologist2024
Optimizing abemaciclib-induced diarrhea management in patients with breast cancer: a pragmatic 2-group study using a postbiotic microbiota stabilizer.
Observational study in The oncologist, 2024. 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.
- A mixed prebiotic/probiotic intervention (MBR-01) for the management of diarrhea during abemaciclib treatment of early breast cancer in postmenopausal patients: A single-center prospective case-control pilot study.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2026Article
- Microbiome-Modulating Strategies in Anticancer Therapy: A Review of Current Evidence and Recommendations for Further Treatment Improvement.Probiotics and antimicrobial proteins · 2026Review
- Scaling Up Postbiotics Production: A Prospective Review of Processes and Health Benefits.Probiotics and antimicrobial proteins · 2026Review
- Gastrointestinal toxicity associated with cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors in breast cancer patients: insights from a real-world pharmacovigilance analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Transforming Breast Cancer Care: Cutting-Edge Insights and Future Directions.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAbemaciclib-induced diarrhea is a relevant concern in clinical practice. Postbiotics have emerged as a promising option for managing it. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe conducted a retrospective-prospective, 2-group, observational study to assess the impact of the postbiotic PostbiotiX-Restore, derived by Lactobacillus paracasei CNCM I-5220, on abemaciclib-induced diarrhea in patients with hormone receptor-positive HER2-negative breast cancer. The prospective population (Postbio group) received postbiotic during the first cycle of abemaciclib, while the retrospective one received standard care (Standard group). Diarrhea grading was defined according to the National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events.
resultsDuring the first cycle, diarrhea occurred in 78.9% of patients in the Standard cohort and 97.1% in the Postbio one, with most cases being G1-G2. Severe (G3) diarrhea was significantly less frequent in the Postbio group (0%) compared to the Standard one (7.9%; P = .029). Over the entire study period, while the grading difference was not statistically significant, G3 events were less frequent in the Postbio population (5.9%) than the Standard one (15.4%). Moreover, Postbio patients required fewer dose reductions due to diarrhea compared to the Standard group (P = .002). Notably, in the Postbio population, G1 and G2 events had short median durations (3 and 1 days, respectively) and, for the 2 patients experiencing G3 events during the second abemaciclib cycle (off postbiotic), diarrhea lasted only 1 day.
conclusionsOur study demonstrates the effect of PostbiotiX-Restore in mitigating abemaciclib-induced diarrhea, resulting in reduced severity, fewer dose reductions, and shorter duration. Further exploration and validation in larger cohorts are needed.
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.