Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20104228›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2010

Tumour response interpretation with new tumour response criteria vs the World Health Organisation criteria in patients with bone-only metastatic breast cancer.

T Hamaoka, C M Costelloe, J E Madewell, P Liu, D A Berry, R Islam, R L Theriault, G N Hortobagyi, N T Ueno

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of cancer, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. SEOR SBRT-SG stereotactic body radiation therapy consensus guidelines for non-spine bone metastasis.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2022
    Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Imaging of Bone Metastases in Breast Cancer.Seminars in nuclear medicine · 2022
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review of imaging techniques for evaluating morphological and functional responses to the treatment of bone metastases in prostate and breast cancer.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2022
    Review
  15. Does the addition of whole-body MRI to routine imaging influence real-world treatment decisions in metastatic breast cancer?Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2022
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

T HamaokaDepartment of Stem Cell Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, 77030, USA.
C M Costelloe
J E Madewell
P Liu
D A Berry
R Islam
R L Theriault
G N Hortobagyi
N T Ueno

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe compared the utility of a new response classification (MDA; based on computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), plain radiography (XR), and skeletal scintigraphy (SS)) and the World Health Organisation response classification (WHO; based on XR and SS) in stratifying breast cancer patients with bone-only metastases with respect to progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and clinical response.

methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 41 patients with bone-only metastatic breast cancer and assigned responses according to the MDA and WHO criteria. We analysed whether the MDA or WHO response classifications correlated with PFS and OS.

resultsWith the MDA criteria, there were significant differences in PFS between patients classified as responders and those classified as nonresponders (P=0.025), but with the WHO criteria, there were not. Neither criteria distinguished responders from nonresponders in terms of OS. MDA response criteria correlated better than WHO response criteria with clinical response assessment.

conclusionsThe MDA classification is superior to the WHO classification in differentiating between responders and nonresponders among breast cancer patients with bone-only metastases. Application of the MDA classification may allow bone lesions to be considered measurable disease. Prospective study is needed to test the MDA classification among patients with bone metastasis.

Indexed as

World Health OrganizationAdultBone NeoplasmsBreast NeoplasmsCarcinomaDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleHumansMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingRetrospective StudiesSurvival AnalysisTomography, X-Ray ComputedTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID20104228
PMCPMC2837571

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.