ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2024
Clinical effectiveness and safety of gemcitabine plus capecitabine in the treatment of advanced triple-negative breast cancer.
Article in American journal of translational research, 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.
- Advancements in Colon Cancer Therapy: A Review on Docetaxel and the Role of Nanotechnology in Enhancing Efficacy.Current drug safety · 2026Review
- Metal Complexation for the Rational Design of Gemcitabine Formulations in Cancer Therapy.ACS applied materials & interfaces · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo determine the clinical effectiveness and safety of Gemcitabine (GEM) plus Capecitabine (CAP) for advanced triple-negative breast cancer (aTNBC).
methodsEighty aTNBC patients treated in Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University between June 2020 and June 2022 were retrospectively included and divided into an observation group (Obs; 42 cases treated with GEM + CAP) and a control group (Con; 38 cases treated with docetaxel + CAP) according to different chemotherapy regimens. The clinical effectiveness and the serum levels of tumor markers and inflammatory factors pre- and post-treatment were detected for comparative analyses. In addition, the two groups were compared in terms of side effects, 1-year survival, and quality of life after 1 month of treatment. Cox regression was performed to identify the independent risk factors affecting patient prognosis.
resultsHigher clinical effectiveness was observed in the Obs group compared to the Con (P < 0.05). The pre-treatment TPS, CA153, TNF-α, and IL-6 levels were comparable between groups (all P > 0.05); however, better post-treatment TPS, CA153, and inflammatory factors were observed in the Obs group compared to the Con (all P < 0.05). The Obs group also showed markedly lower drug-induced toxicities than the Con group, with higher 1-year survival and better quality-of-life after 1 month of treatment (all P < 0.05). According to multivariate analysis, clinical stage and lymph node metastasis were independent risk factors for poor prognosis, and GEM + CAP chemotherapy was a protective prognostic factor.
conclusionsGEM + CAP is effective in treating aTNBC and provides clinical benefit for patients, with fewer side effects and good patient tolerance.
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.