Abstract P5-14-05: Capecitabine in early breast cancer: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Capecitabine is an effective therapy for metastatic breast cancer. Its role in early breast cancer is uncertain due to conflicting data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods PubMed and major conference proceedings were searched to identify RCTs comparing standard chemotherapy (defined as cyclophosphamide/methotrexate/5-fluorouracil, anthracycline-based regimens or anthracycline/taxane combinations) with or without capecitabine in the neo-adjuvant or adjuvant setting. Hazard ratios (HR) for disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS), as well as odds ratios (ORs) for safety and tolerability were extracted or calculated and pooled in a meta-analysis. Subgroup analysis compared triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) to non-TNBC and whether capecitabine was given in addition to or in place of standard chemotherapy. Meta-regression was used to explore the influence of TNBC on OS. Results Eight studies comprising 9302 patients were included. In unselected patients, capecitabine did not influence DFS (HR 0.99, p=0.93) or OS (HR 0.90, p=0.36). There was a significant difference in DFS when capecitabine was given in addition to, compared to in place of standard treatment (HR 0.92 vs. 1.62, interaction p=0.002). Addition of capecitabine to standard chemotherapy was associated with significantly improved DFS in TNBC vs non-TNBC (HR 0.72 vs. 1.01, interaction p=0.02). Meta-regression confirmed this association with OS (R=-0.967, p=0.007). Capecitabine increased Grade 3/4 diarrhea (OR 2.33, p<0.001) and hand foot syndrome (OR 8.08, p<0.001), and resulted in more frequent treatment discontinuation (OR 3.80, p<0.001). Conclusion Adding capecitabine to standard chemotherapy appears to improve DFS and OS in TNBC, but increases adverse events in keeping with its known toxicity profile. Consideration of this treatment is warranted, especially in high-risk patients. Citation Format: Natori A, Ethier J-L, Amir E, Cescon DW. Capecitabine in early breast cancer: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2016 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2016 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-14-05.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.051 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".