Observational studyBreast cancer research and treatment2026
Real-world clinical outcomes of patients with early-stage TNBC and BRCAm who were treated with adjuvant capecitabine in the United States.
Observational study in Breast cancer research and treatment, 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
purposeClinical benefit from adjuvant capecitabine in patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (eTNBC) and deleterious BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation (BRCAm) is not well characterized. This retrospective, observational study explored the real-world effectiveness of adjuvant capecitabine in patients with eTNBC by BRCAm status.
methodsData from adults diagnosed with eTNBC from 2016 to 2024 were captured from electronic health records in the US Flatiron Health database. Patients who initiated adjuvant capecitabine within 6 months after primary surgery and had documented BRCA status (by germline/tumor testing) were included.
resultsOf 882 patients who received adjuvant capecitabine, 53 (6%) had BRCAm, and 829 (94%) had non-BRCAm tumors. Median age at eTNBC diagnosis was lower in patients with BRCAm versus non-BRCAm (47 vs. 55 years). Most patients received capecitabine after neoadjuvant treatment (BRCAm: n = 49/53, 92%; non-BRCAm: n = 755/829, 91%), and most received adjuvant capecitabine monotherapy (BRCAm: n = 52/53, 98%; non-BRCAm: n = 790/829, 95%). Survival rates from surgery to 36 months were numerically lower in patients with BRCAm versus non-BRCAm (invasive disease-free survival: 59% vs. 72%; distant disease-free survival: 59% vs. 73%; overall survival: 67% vs. 80%); these differences were maintained in sensitivity analyses of patients with profiles aligned with the CREATE-X clinical trial criteria.
conclusionThis analysis showed a trend for worse real-world survival in patients with BRCAm versus non-BRCAm eTNBC who received adjuvant capecitabine. Although descriptive, these findings suggest an unmet need for patients with BRCAm eTNBC despite adjuvant capecitabine treatment; this could be addressed through wider BRCA testing and subsequent targeted therapy for patients with BRCAm.
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.