ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
A real-world comparison study of the efficacy of dual-target first-line rescue treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive advanced breast cancer: trastuzumab combined with pertuzumab versus trastuzumab combined with pyrotinib.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04609540 (Pyrotinib Combined With Trastuzumab and Chemotherapy in HER2-positive Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients- a Multicenter Retrospective Study), which is not on this 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.
Pyrotinib Combined With Trastuzumab and Chemotherapy in HER2-positive Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients- a Multicenter Retrospective Study
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Trastuzumab combined with pertuzumab (HP) is a first-line therapy for advanced breast cancer (ABC). However, trastuzumab combined with pyrotinib (HPyr) could also exert complementary and synergistic effects. Currently, clinical trials directly comparing the effectiveness of the above two treatment approaches are lacking. Herein, a registered single-center, retrospective study (NCT04609540) was caried out. Methods: In the present study, patients diagnosed with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive ABC and treated with dual-target first-line rescue treatment at the Shandong Cancer Hospital between January 2018 and February 2023 were included. Patients were assigned to the HP or HPyr treatment groups by the physician-in-charge. The clinical, pathological and prognostic data of all patients were collected and recorded. Results: Among the 89 patients included, 47 received HP, while the remaining 42 HPyr. The therapeutic effect of each treatment approach was determined via evaluating progression-free survival (PFS). The results showed that patients who were treated with HPyr displayed a higher progression rate (71.4% vs. 63.8%) compared with those treated with HP. However, statistical significance was not reached (mean PFS, 21.0±1.9 vs. 24.1±2.8 months; P=0.653). In addition, patients of >60 years old, who received HPyr and younger patients (≤40 years old) who received HP had longer PFS (22.8±4.9 vs. 16.8±4.2 months; P=0.332; and 27.4±5.5 vs. 15.8±5.6 months; P=0.098, respectively). PFS without significant differences was also obtained in the other subgroups. Furthermore, HP showed better clinical efficacy in young patients compared with older ones, while HPyr benefitted older patients. In the other subgroups, the two dual-target regimens also displayed curative effects, without significant differences. Discussion: Overall, the results of the current study suggested that HPyr could be equivalently used as HP, as a first-line treatment strategy for patients with HER2-positive ABC. Currently, more prospective large-sample studies are needed to further validate our conclusions.
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.