| pathology | treatment | patient | Demonstrated benefit and harm | k | | | |
|---|
| advanced breast cancer (metastatic) | capecitabine | not classified | versus CT No demonstrated result for efficacy | 5 trials | meta-analysis | | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
|---|
| T1 vs T0 | | | | | T1 vs T0 | | | | | T1 vs T0 | | | | | T1 vs T0 | | | | | T1 vs T0 | | | |
| Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
|---|
| EORTC 10001 (Pajk), 2008 | capecitabine 1250 mg/m(2) orally bid days 1-14 (n=-9) vs. vinorelbine 30 mg/m(2) i.v. days 1 and 8, both given every 3 weeks (n=-9) | patients with anthracycline- and taxane-pretreated metastatic breast cancer | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Oshaughnessy, 2001 | intermittent oral capecitabine 1,255 mg/m2 twice daily (two weeks' treatment followed by a one-week rest period) (n=-9) vs. intravenous CMF (cyclophosphamide. methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil [5-FU]) administered every three weeks (n=-9) | -line therapy for advanced/metastatic breast cancer | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Hori | capecitabine, + medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) + cyclophosphamide (n=-9) vs. 5-fluorouracil + adriamycin + CPA) plus MPA (n=-9) | metastatic breast cancer | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Stockler, 2011 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Jäger, 2010 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
| advanced breast cancer (metastatic) | capecitabine | not classified | versus taxane containing regimen No demonstrated result for efficacy | 7 trials | meta-analysis | | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
|---|
| T1 vs T0 | | | | | T1 vs T0 | | | | | T1 vs T0 | | | | | T1 vs T0 | | | | | T1 vs T0 | | | | | T1 vs T0 | | | | | T1 vs T0 | | | |
| Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
|---|
| GeparQuattro, 2010 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | Patients with large operable or locally advanced tumors, with hormone receptor-negative tumors, or with receptor-positive tumors but also clinically node-positive disease | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Mavroudis, 2010 | docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) on day 1 plus capecitabine 950 mg/m(2) orally twice daily on days 1-14 (DC) in 21-day cycles (n=-9) vs. docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) plus epirubicin 75 mg/m(2) (DE) on day 1 (n=-9) | women with advanced breast cancer | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Verma, 2005 | 21-day cycles of oral capecitabine 1250 mg/m2 twice daily, on Days 1-14, plus docetaxel 75 mg/m2 Day 1 (n=255) vs. docetaxel 100 mg/m2 on Day 1 (n=256) | patients with anthracycline-pretreated metastatic breast carcinoma | Sample size: 255/256 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Miles, 2004 | (n=511) vs. (n=0) | patients with anthracycline-pretreated advanced/metastatic breast cancer | Sample size: 511/0 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | O'Shaughnessy, 2002 | 21-day cycles of oral capecitabine 1,250 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1 to 14 plus docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) on day 1 (n=255) vs. docetaxel 100 mg/m(2) on day 1 (n=256) | patients with advanced breast cancer | Sample size: 255/256 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Talbot, 2002 | intermittent oral capecitabine (1255 mg m(-2) twice daily, days 1-14, (22 patients)) (n=-9) vs. i.v. paclitaxel (175 mg m(-2), (n=-9) | patients with metastatic/advanced breast cancer pretreated with anthracyclines | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Moiseenko, 2000 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
| advanced breast cancer (metastatic) | cisplatin | not classified | versus No demonstrated result for efficacy | 13 trials | meta-analysis | | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
|---|
| T1 vs T0 | | | | | T1 vs T0 | | | | | T1 vs T0 | | | | | T1 vs T0 | | | | | T1 vs T0 | | | | | T1 vs T0 | | | | | T1 vs T0 | | | | | T1 vs T0 | | | | | T1 vs T0 | | | | | T1 vs T0 | | | | | T1 vs T0 | | | | | T1 vs T0 | | | | | T1 vs T0 | | | |
| Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
|---|
| Berruti A, 2002 | cisplatin + epirubicin (n=-9) vs. lonidamine + epirubicin (n=-9) | | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Berruti B, 2002 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Cocconi, 1999 | The same single agents (C, M, F, cisplatin, etoposide, and doxorubicin) were administered in both experimental arms, but following a different policy. (n=-9) vs. cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and 5-fluorouracil (n=-9) | | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Costanza, 1999 | carboplatin followed by CAF (n=-9) vs. immediate chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and fluorouracil (CAF) (n=-9) | women with measurable metastatic breast cancer, previously untreated with chemotherapy for their metastatic disease | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Creagan ET, 1984 | four cycles of cyclophosphamide, Adriamycin (Adria Laboratories, Inc, Columbus, Ohio), cisplatin (CAP) followed by maintenance with cyclophosphamide, 5-fluorouracil, prednisone (CFP) (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Nielsen, 2000 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Cocconi, 1991 | cisplatin (P) and etoposide (E) (n=-9) vs. standard cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) (n=-9) | | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Cocconi G, 1996 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Eisen, 1998 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Fountzilas, 2002 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Icli, 2002 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Kolaric, 1985 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Kolaric, 1989 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
| advanced breast cancer (metastatic) | gemcitabine | not classified | versus No demonstrated result for efficacy | 8 trials | meta-analysis | | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
|---|
| T1 vs T0 | | | | | T1 vs T0 | | | | | T1 vs T0 | | | | | T1 vs T0 | | | | | T1 vs T0 | | | | | T1 vs T0 | | | | | T1 vs T0 | | | | | T1 vs T0 | | | |
| Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
|---|
| Nielsen, 2011 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Brufsky, 2011 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Seidman, 2011 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Papadimitriou, 2009 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Chan, 2009 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Albain, 2008 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Martín, 2007 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Feher, 2005 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
