Trial reportBreast cancer research and treatment2025
A direct comparison of classical oral Navelbine vs metronomic Navelbine in metastatic breast cancer: results from the Danish Breast Cancer Group's (DBCG) NAME-trial.
Trial report in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe metronomic principle of chemotherapy for malignancies, using frequent small doses, has been suggested to show superior efficacy compared with classical administration. Thus, we aimed at investigating whether treatment with Navelbine, according to the metronomic drug schedule, was superior to conventional oral treatment in terms of clinical efficacy and safety. EUDRACT no: 2016-002165-63.
methodsThe NAME-trial was an open label, randomized, multicenter phase II study. We included 163 patients with metastatic breast cancer in Denmark between 2017 and 2022. All participants were randomized between standard treatment in arm A with classical per oral Vinorelbine day 1 and day 8, every three weeks, or in arm B metronomic treatment with per oral Vinorelbine given as daily doses.
resultsThe distribution of patients was well balanced between the two treatment arms. The median age was 68-69 years in both arms, with a good performance status at study entry. We found a median progression-free survival (PFS) in arm A of 3.9 months and a median PFS in arm B of 2.3 months (P = 0.236). The median overall survival (OS) was 16.6 months in arm A and 15.1 months in arm B (P = 0.355). The evaluation of the adverse events showed that both regimes were well tolerated without significant differences.
conclusionOur overall evaluation of the NAME-trial results showed that metronomic oral Navelbine is not superior to the standard treatment with Vinorelbine and without any significant differences concerning side effects.
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.