ArticleInternational journal of clinical oncology2025
Anti-HER2 plus endocrine therapy versus anti-HER2 plus chemotherapy in hormone receptor-positive and HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer: a retrospective study.
Article in International journal of clinical oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNo clinical trials demonstrated anti-HER2 plus chemotherapy (anti-HER2 + ChT) was superior to anti-HER2 plus endocrine therapy (anti-HER2 + ET) in HR + /HER2 + MBC. This study aims to compare efficacy of anti-HER2 + ET with anti-HER2 + ChT in real-world clinical practice, and analyze clinical outcome of anti-HER2 + ET as maintenance therapy after benefiting from anti-HER2 + ChT.
methodsThis study retrospectively compared two regimens: anti-HER2 + ChT vs anti-HER2 + ET, utilizing chi-square tests for response rate comparisons and Kaplan-Meier approach for survival analysis.
resultsTotally, 241 eligible patients were included in this study. In first-line setting, 197 patients (81.7%) received anti-HER2 + ChT and 44 (18.3%) received anti-HER2 + ET. Objective response rate (54.3% vs 11.4%, P < 0.001) and clinical benefit rate (82.7% vs 68.2%, P = 0.029) of anti-HER2 + ChT group were higher than those of anti-HER2 + ET. PFS analysis showed there was no significant difference between anti-HER2 + ChT and anti-HER2 + ET in first-line (mPFS, 15.0 m [95%CI 12.1-17.9] vs 9.0 m [95%CI 0.5-17.5]; HR 1.32 [0.88-1.98]; P = 0.162) and the front two lines of treatment (PFS-2, 26.0 m [95%CI 23.0-29.0] vs 24.0 m [95%CI 15.9-32.1]; HR 1.03 [0.64-1.64]; P = 0.919). Notably, PFS of patients with anti-HER2 + ChT maintained by anti-HER2 + ET was superior to anti-HER2 + ET (24.0 m [95%CI 18.0-30.0] vs 17.0 m [95%CI 9.5-24.5]; HR 0.53 [0.32-0.89]; P = 0.005) and other anti-HER2 + ChT group (24.0 m vs 12.0 m [95%CI 9.1-15.0]; HR 0.52 [0.36-0.76]; P < 0.001).
conclusionWhile anti-HER2 + ChT showed superior disease control over anti-HER2 + ET, it didn't confer a survival advantage, possibly due to small sample size or retrospective design constraints. For patients deriving benefit from anti-HER2 + ChT, transitioning to maintenance therapy with anti-HER2 + ET may represent an optional strategy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41068436What 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.