ArticleBMC cancer2026
Metronomic (mCHT) vs standard (sCHT) chemotherapy as first-line treatment in HR+/HER2- Metastatic Breast Cancer (MBC) patients following failure of endocrine treatments. The matched control VICTOR-15 study.
Article in BMC cancer, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHR+/HER2- MBC patients often receive chemotherapy (CHT) following endocrine therapy (ET); however, treatment-related toxicities remain a significant limitation. Metronomic chemotherapy (mCHT) involves the administration of low-dose chemotherapeutic agents at regular intervals without extended breaks. The VICTOR-15 study is a retrospective, matched controlled study designed to compare mCHT with standard chemotherapy (sCHT) in HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients after ET failure.
methodsWe identified consecutive patients treated with mCHT or sCHT between 2015 and 2024. Each mCHT patient was matched with a variable number of women treated with sCHT based on multiple clinical and demographic factors. The primary endpoint was real world progression-free suvival (rwPFS). Secondary endpoints included Overall Survival (OS)), Overall Response Rate (ORR) and Clinical Benefit Rate (CBR). rwPFS and OS were estimated by a weighted Kaplan-Meyer to account for variable matching.
resultsThe final analysis included 27 patients treated with mCHT and 52 with sCHT patients after matching (min = 1, max = 5). The median age at treatment initiation was 60.9 years for the mCHT group and 60.3 years for the sCHT group. Prior CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy was reported in 51.9% of mCHT patients and 48.1% of sCHT patients. Visceral metastases were present in 70.4% of mCHT patients and 69.2% of sCHT patients. CBR and ORR were higher in the mCHT group compared to the sCHT group (CBR: 66.7% vs. 61.5%; ORR: 37.0% vs. 28.8%). Median rwPFS was 7.0 (95%CI=4.1-12.6) and 5.4 months (95%CI=3.9-7.0) for mCHT and sCHT. Median OS was 29.3 months (95%CI=22.4-44.9) for mCHT and15.3 months, (95%CI: 9.2-26.9) for sCHT. A higher proportion of patients in the sCHT group did not initiate a subsequent treatment compared to the mCHT group (23.1% vs 11.1%).
conclusionmCHT demonstrated promising efficacy compared to sCHT following failure of ET±CDK 4/6i. This finding, combined with the generally favourable toxicity profile, supports the rationale for further randomized studies to better evaluate this therapeutic strategy.
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.