ReviewBone marrow transplantation2003
Should we continue to study high-dose chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer patients? A critical review of the published data.
Review in Bone marrow transplantation, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pegase 03: a prospective randomized phase III trial of FEC with or without high-dose thiotepa, cyclophosphamide and autologous stem cell transplantation in first-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer.Bone marrow transplantation · 2008Trial
- Haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) in Europe 2002. Changes in indication and impact of team density. A report of the EBMT activity survey.Bone marrow transplantation · 2004Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Data from eight randomised trials on high-dose chemotherapy (HDC) for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) have been published, but only seven studies are evaluable after the Bezwoda trial was discredited. Moreover, overall survival (OS) has been evaluated in only four out of seven studies since three had a crossover design. OS was similar for the HDC and standard-dose chemotherapy (SDC) group in the four evaluable trials, while disease-free survival (DFS) was improved in the HDC group in six of the seven trials. The delay in relapse for patients with metastatic disease represents an important clinical outcome; furthermore, since none of the reported studies randomised more than 220 patients, their statistical power may have been too limited to detect meaningful survival differences. Finally, preliminary experiences have shown that HDC seems to be the ideal platform upon which to build novel therapies. In conclusion, HDC remains an important field of clinical research for breast cancer patients with stage IV disease and, from the studies reported in this article, there is some evidence for offering this therapeutic modality to selected patients who are interested in a medically aggressive approach.
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.