Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23299526›Full record

Trial reportBritish journal of cancer2013

A central review of histopathology reports after breast cancer neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the neo-tango trial.

E Provenzano, A-L Vallier, R Champ, K Walland, S Bowden, A Grier, N Fenwick, J Abraham, M Iddawela, C Caldas and 3 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in British journal of cancer, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Reproducibility of residual cancer burden for prognostic assessment of breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2015
    Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Quality of Breast Cancer Surgical Pathology ReportsAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2018
    Article
  12. The ever-evolving role of pathologists in the management of breast cancer with neoadjuvant treatment: recommendations based on the Spanish clinical experience.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2018
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Central pathology review with two-stage quality assurance for pathological response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the ARTemis Trial.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2017
    Article
  15. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancers.Women's health (London, England) · 2016
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

E ProvenzanoDepartment of Oncology Box 193, University of Cambridge, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Hills Road, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK. elena.provenzano@focuspathology.com.au
A-L Vallier
R Champ
K Walland
S Bowden
A Grier
N Fenwick
J Abraham
M Iddawela
C Caldas
L Hiller
J Dunn
H M Earl
Addenbrooke's Hospital · GBUniversity of Birmingham · GBUniversity of Warwick · GBNIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research CentreUniversity of Cambridge · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 11010
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNeo-tAnGo, a National Cancer Research Network (NCRN) multicentre randomised neoadjuvant chemotherapy trial in early breast cancer, enroled 831 patients in the United Kingdom. We report a central review of post-chemotherapy histopathology reports on the surgical specimens, to assess the presence and degree of response.

methodsA central independent two-reader review (EP and HME) of histopathology reports from post-treatment surgical specimens was performed. The quality and completeness of pathology reporting across all centres was assessed. The reviews included pathological response to chemotherapy (pathological complete response (pCR); minimal residual disease (MRD); and lesser degrees of response), laterality, the number of axillary metastases and axillary nodes, and the type of surgery. A consensus was reached after discussion.

resultsIn all, 825 surgical reports from 816 patients were available for review. Out of 4125 data items there were 347 discrepant results (8.4% of classifications), which involved 281 patients. These involved grading of breast response (169 but only 9 involving pCR vs MRD); laterality (6); presence of axillary metastasis (35); lymph node counts (108); and type of axillary surgery (29). Excluding cases with pCR, only 45% of reports included any comment regarding response in the breast and 30% in the axillary lymph nodes.

conclusionWe found considerable variability in the completeness of reporting of surgical specimens within this national neoadjuvant breast cancer trial. This highlights the need for consensus guidelines among trial groups on histopathology reporting, and the participation of histopathologists throughout the development and analysis of neoadjuvant trials.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsAxillaBreast NeoplasmsChemotherapy, AdjuvantFemaleHumansLymphatic MetastasisLymph NodesNeoadjuvant TherapyNeoplasm, ResidualPrognosisResearch DesignTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID23299526
PMCPMC3590651
OpenAlexW2050594705

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.