ArticleCancer cell international2024
Real world analysis of the efficacy and safety of eribulin compared to utidelone in combination with capecitabine for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer.
Article in Cancer cell international, 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.
- Utidelone-associated chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: an evidence-stratified narrative review of mechanisms, risk identification, and management strategies.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of subsequent chemotherapy with single eribulin or utidelone combined with a capecitabine regimen in patients with advanced breast cancer who had previously been treated with anthracyclines and paclitaxel.
methodsThis work was a retrospective analysis of 85 patients from July 2018 to July 2023. Forty-two and 43 patients were treated with the eribulin regimen and the utidelone/capecitabine regimen, respectively. The endpoints included progression-free survival, overall survival, the objective remission rate and safety. Survival analyses and multifactorial analyses were performed via the Kaplan‒Meier method, log-rank test and Cox regression models.
resultsAs of 15 April 2024, the mPFS durations of the patients in the utidelone/capecitabine and eribulin treatment groups were 7.7 and 5.2 months, respectively, and the mOS durations were 22.0 and 18.2 months, respectively. Subgroup analyses revealed that in advanced first-line therapy, the mPFS durations of the utidelone/capecitabine group and the eribulin group were 11.8 and 7.0 months, respectively, and this difference was significant. In the eribulin treatment arm, the mPFS of first-line therapy was 7.0, whereas it was 3.3 months for posterior-line therapy, and this difference was significant. The most common adverse reactions were neurotoxicity, hand‒foot syndrome, hematological toxicity, gastrointestinal toxicity, and abnormalities in hepatic and renal functions.
conclusionsIn conclusion, either utidelone/capecitabine or eribulin chemotherapy may result in a survival benefit with a tolerable adverse effect profile and favorable safety profile in patients with metastatic breast cancer. The first-line use of eribulin resulted in better PFS and ORR than posterior-line use, and the combination of utidelone/capecitabine represents a more efficacious approach in the advanced first-line therapy of breast cancer.
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.