Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24396498›Full record

ReviewJournal of Cancer2014

Current approaches and challenges in monitoring treatment responses in breast cancer.

Lindsey J Graham, Matthew P Shupe, Erika J Schneble, Frederick L Flynt, Michael N Clemenshaw, Aaron D Kirkpatrick, Chris Gallagher, Aviram Nissan, Leonard Henry, Alexander Stojadinovic and 2 more

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of Cancer, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 54 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing 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.

NCT03501394 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2018, after this paper: background citation

What Are the Factors Affecting Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Efficacy in Breast Cancer? A Non-invasive in Vivo Study Using Specialist Magnetic Resonance (MR) Methods

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of AberdeenRan2018 to 2019Enrolled25ConditionsBreast Neoplasm Malignant Breast TissueArmsMagnetic Resonance Imaging, Histopathological Analysis, Health Questionnaire
NCT03944226 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Is Dietary Nitrate Effective in Reducing Aerobic Glycolysis (AG) in Breast Cancer? - A Longitudinal Study Using Specialist Magnetic Resonance (MR) Methods

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of AberdeenRan2019 to 2020Enrolled16ConditionsMalignant Breast Tissue NeoplasmArmsBeetroot juice
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Cost-effectiveness of 2-[Scientific reports · 2023
    Article
  13. Review
  14. H-Scan Ultrasound Monitoring of Breast Cancer Response to Chemotherapy and Validation With Diffusion-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging.Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

12 authors.

Lindsey J Graham1. San Antonio Military Medical Center (SAMMC), 3551 Roger Brooke Dr., Ft. Sam Houston, TX 78234, USA.
Matthew P Shupe1. San Antonio Military Medical Center (SAMMC), 3551 Roger Brooke Dr., Ft. Sam Houston, TX 78234, USA.
Erika J Schneble1. San Antonio Military Medical Center (SAMMC), 3551 Roger Brooke Dr., Ft. Sam Houston, TX 78234, USA.
Frederick L Flynt1. San Antonio Military Medical Center (SAMMC), 3551 Roger Brooke Dr., Ft. Sam Houston, TX 78234, USA.
Michael N Clemenshaw1. San Antonio Military Medical Center (SAMMC), 3551 Roger Brooke Dr., Ft. Sam Houston, TX 78234, USA.
Aaron D Kirkpatrick1. San Antonio Military Medical Center (SAMMC), 3551 Roger Brooke Dr., Ft. Sam Houston, TX 78234, USA.
Chris Gallagher2. Walter Reed National Military Medical Center (NMMC), 8901 Wisconsin Ave Bethesda, MD 20814, USA.
Aviram Nissan3. Hadassah Medical Center, Kiryat Hadassah, POB 12000, Jerusalem, 91120, Israel.
Leonard Henry4. IU Health Goshen, 200 High Park Ave., Goshen, IN 46526, USA.
Alexander Stojadinovic5. Bon Secours Cancer Institute, 6505 West Broad St., Richmond, VA 23230, USA.
George E Peoples1. San Antonio Military Medical Center (SAMMC), 3551 Roger Brooke Dr., Ft. Sam Houston, TX 78234, USA.
Nathan M Shumway1. San Antonio Military Medical Center (SAMMC), 3551 Roger Brooke Dr., Ft. Sam Houston, TX 78234, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Monitoring response to treatment is a key element in the management of breast cancer that involves several different viewpoints from surgery, radiology, and medical oncology. In the adjuvant setting, appropriate surgical and pathological evaluation guides adjuvant treatment and follow up care focuses on detecting recurrent disease with the intention of improving long term survival. In the neoadjuvant setting, assessing response to chemotherapy prior to surgery to include evaluation for pathologic response can provide prognostic information to help guide follow up care. In the metastatic setting, for those undergoing treatment, it is crucial to determine responders versus non-responders in order to help guide treatment decisions. In this review, we present the current guidelines for monitoring treatment response in the adjuvant, neoadjuvant, and metastatic setting. In addition, we also discuss challenges that are faced in each setting.

Indexed as

AdjuvantBreast cancerFuture directionsMetastaticNeo-adjuvantTreatment monitoring

Identifiers

PMID24396498
PMCPMC3881221

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.