Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17912639›Full record

ReviewBreast cancer research and treatment2007

The patient experience.

Nadia Harbeck, Renate Haidinger

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Nadia HarbeckFrauenklinik der Technischen Universität München, Ismaninger Strasse 22, Münich 81675, Germany. nadia.harbeck@lrz.tum.de
Renate Haidinger

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The impact of improved treatments for the management of hormone-sensitive breast cancer extends beyond clinical responses. Thanks to appropriate literature and access to the internet, patient awareness of treatment options has grown and patients are now, in many cases, able to engage their oncologists in informed conversations regarding treatment and what to expect in terms of efficacy and safety. Indeed, patients realize that although there is no cure for metastatic disease, treatment can greatly reduce the risk of progression and in the adjuvant setting, where treatment is administered with a curative intent, current treatment options reduce the risk of relapse. The approval of letrozole throughout the breast cancer continuum has provided patients with many reassuring options. The improvement in outcome with letrozole is achieved without a detrimental effect on overall quality of life. Adverse events such as hot flushes, arthralgia, vaginal dryness, and potential osteoporosis are most significant from the patient's perspective, and it is important that caregivers pay attention to patients experiencing these events, as they can impact compliance unless effectively explained and managed. The major benefits of letrozole are to improve prospects for long-term survivorship in the adjuvant setting and to delay progression and the need for chemotherapy in the metastatic setting.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overAntineoplastic Agents, HormonalAromatase InhibitorsBreast NeoplasmsChemotherapy, AdjuvantDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleHumansLetrozoleMiddle AgedNeoadjuvant TherapyNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasms, Hormone-DependentNitrilesPatient Education as TopicAntineoplastic Agents, HormonalAromatase InhibitorsLetrozoleNitrilesSelective Estrogen Receptor ModulatorsTamoxifenTriazoles

Identifiers

PMID17912639
PMCPMC2001217

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.