Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24218050›Full record

ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2013

Use of the metastatic breast cancer progression (MBC-P) questionnaire to assess the value of progression-free survival for women with metastatic breast cancer.

Sara A Hurvitz, Deepa Lalla, Ross D Crosby, Susan D Mathias

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Breast surgery for metastatic breast cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Overexpression ofCancer management and research · 2020
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
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

4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Sara A HurvitzUniversity of California, Los Angeles, California.
Deepa Lalla
Ross D Crosby
Susan D Mathias
Health Outcomes Solutions (United States) · USPalo Alto Institute · USUniversity of California, Los Angeles · USUniversity of North Dakota · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While overall survival (OS) has historically been the primary endpoint for clinical trials in oncology, progression-free survival (PFS) has gained acceptance as a valuable surrogate endpoint. However, there are no known published reports about the value of PFS from the patient's perspective. We developed a questionnaire that included items regarding quality of life (QoL) and the importance of different treatment outcomes and presented hypothetical scenarios for which respondents were asked to indicate their preferences concerning treatments as they relate to PFS. 282 women with metastatic breast cancer (MBC), ranging in age from 21 to 80 years completed an online version of this questionnaire. The majority of women (66 %) had been diagnosed with MBC within the previous 3 years and 56 % had been told their MBC had progressed. When asked to rank five treatment characteristics from most important to least important, respondents ranked "extending PFS" as the second most important treatment outcome after OS. When presented with a hypothetical scenario of two women receiving different treatments, respondents preferred the treatment that resulted in longer PFS (16 vs. 12 months), even when OS and side effects were assumed to be equal. Specifically, when asked to consider which woman within the hypothetical scenario had better QoL, physical functioning, and emotional well-being, respondents more often chose the woman who experienced longer PFS (QoL: 40 vs. 6 %; physical functioning: 32 vs. 8 %; emotional well-being: 58 vs. 6 %) compared to the woman within the hypothetical scenario who had a shorter time of progression. Respondents rated their own QoL highest after being told their MBC was responding to treatment (mean score 76.6) versus after the initial diagnosis of breast cancer and MBC (68.5 and 60.3). These findings suggest that extending PFS is an important treatment outcome and, from a patient perspective, improves overall QoL, physical functioning, and emotional well-being.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overBreast NeoplasmsDisease ProgressionFemaleHumansMiddle AgedNeoplasm MetastasisPatient Outcome AssessmentQuality of LifeRisk FactorsSurveys and QuestionnairesTreatment OutcomeYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID24218050
PMCPMC3855533
OpenAlexW1973504138

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.