Trial reportClinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research2025
FOXC1 Expression Predicts Capecitabine Efficacy in Patients with Triple-Negative Breast Cancer from the GEICAM_CIBOMA Trial.
Trial report in Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00130533 (Multicenter, Open-label, Randomized Phase III to Evaluate Efficacy of Maintenance Treatment With Capecitabine Following Standard Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Operable Triple Negative Breast Cancer Patients), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Multicenter, Open-label, Randomized Phase III to Evaluate Efficacy of Maintenance Treatment With Capecitabine Following Standard Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Operable Triple Negative Breast Cancer Patients
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
25 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeIn a prespecified GEICAM_CIBOMA trial (NCT00130533) correlative analysis, PAM50 non-basal-like breast cancer (non-BLBC) status distinguished patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) who are most likely to benefit from adjuvant capecitabine. The standardized forkhead box C1 (FOXC1) IHC test has demonstrated strong reliability in classifying the BLBC subtype throughout TNBC cohorts. This translational analysis aimed to evaluate the prognostic/predictive significance of BLBC classification by FOXC1 IHC in the phase III GEICAM_CIBOMA clinical trial. EXPERIMENTAL
designTumor tissues from patients with TNBC randomized to standard (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy followed by capecitabine versus observation were analyzed using the standardized FOXC1 IHC test to assess its BLBC/non-BLBC TNBC subtyping capacity as a distant relapse-free survival clinical outcome predictor of capecitabine benefit (exploratory endpoints: disease-free survival, overall survival, and recurrence-free survival).
resultsA total of 705 (80.5%) patients from the GEICAM_CIBOMA trial were evaluable for FOXC1 expression analysis, with balanced distribution between the trial's treatments. FOXC1 proportion/intensity (VFOXC1) score-based subtyping demonstrated a strong association [AUC = 0.87; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.84-0.91] and agreement (κ index = 0.43; P < 0.0001) with PAM50 molecular subtyping. VFOXC1 non-BLBC TNBC subtype was a significant independent predictor of clinical benefit with capecitabine for distant relapse-free survival (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.25-0.76; P = 0.003). This predictive effect of VFOXC1 non-BLBC on capecitabine efficacy was further confirmed at disease-free survival (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.28-0.78; P = 0.003), overall survival (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.24-0.96; P = 0.038), and recurrence-free survival (HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.22-0.72; P = 0.002).
conclusionsThis ambispective GEICAM_CIBOMA translational analysis validated FOXC1-based basal-like/non-basal-like subtyping as a pragmatic alternative to PAM50 subtyping and independently predicted the benefit of adding capecitabine to standard (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy in TNBC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.