ArticleBreast cancer (Dove Medical Press)2026
Capecitabine versus Paclitaxel After CDK4/6 Inhibitor Progression in Hormone Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Real-World Study.
Article in Breast cancer (Dove Medical Press), 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) combined with endocrine therapy represent the standard first-line treatment for hormone receptor-positive (HR+), HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. However, optimal chemotherapy selection after progression on CDK4/6i remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of capecitabine versus paclitaxel in a real-world post-CDK4/6i setting. Methods: This retrospective two-center study included HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer patients who experienced disease progression after CDK4/6i therapy and subsequently received either capecitabine or paclitaxel. Paclitaxel was administered at a dose of 80 mg/m Results: A total of 115 patients were included, of whom 68 (59%) received capecitabine and 47 (41%) received paclitaxel. Baseline clinicopathological characteristics were comparable between the two groups. The median follow-up was 48.3 months. Median PFS was 5.45 months in the capecitabine group and 6.53 months in the paclitaxel group (p = 0.622). Median OS was 42.2 and 43.1 months, respectively (p = 0.299). Treatment type was not independently associated either PFS or OS. Visceral metastasis after CDK4/6i progression independently predicted shorter PFS (HR 1.62, p = 0.042), whereas higher tumor grade was associated with inferior OS (HR 1.82, p = 0.018). Treatment-related toxicities differed between regimens: paclitaxel was predominantly associated with neuropathy and hematologic toxicity, whereas capecitabine was primarily associated with hand-foot syndrome and gastrointestinal toxicity. Conclusion: Capecitabine and paclitaxel demonstrated comparable efficacy after CDK4/6i progression, with no significant differences in PFS or OS. Given their distinct toxicity profiles, treatment selection should be individualized according to patient characteristics and tolerability.
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.