Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24396499›Full record

ReviewJournal of Cancer2014

Future directions for monitoring treatment responses in breast cancer.

Matthew P Shupe, Lindsey J Graham, Erika J Schneble, Frederick L Flynt, Michael N Clemenshaw, Aaron D Kirkpatrick, Alexander Stojadinovic, George E Peoples, Nathan M Shumway

Abstract 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. 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

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

9 authors.

Matthew P Shupe1. Department of Hematology/Oncology.
Lindsey J Graham1. Department of Hematology/Oncology.
Erika J Schneble2. Department of Surgery.
Frederick L Flynt1. Department of Hematology/Oncology.
Michael N Clemenshaw3. Department of Nuclear Medicine.
Aaron D Kirkpatrick4. Department of Diagnostic Radiology.
Alexander Stojadinovic5. Department of Surgical Oncology, San Antonio Military Medical Center (SAMMC), Brooke Army Medical Center, 3551 Roger Brooke Dr., Ft. Sam Houston, TX 78234, USA.
George E Peoples6. Department of Surgical Oncology, Walter Reid National Military Medical Center, 8901 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20889, USA.
Nathan M Shumway1. Department of Hematology/Oncology.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the prior review, we outlined the current standard of care for monitoring treatment responses in breast cancer and discussed the many challenges associated with these strategies. We described the challenges faced in common clinical settings such as the adjuvant setting, neoadjuvant setting, and the metastatic setting. In this review, we will expand upon future directions meant to overcome several of these current challenges. We will also explore several new and promising methods under investigation to enhance how we monitor treatment responses in breast cancer. Furthermore, we will highlight several new technologies and techniques for monitoring breast cancer treatment in the adjuvant, neoadjuvant and metastatic setting.

Indexed as

adjuvantbreast cancerfuture directionsmetastaticneoadjuvanttreatment monitoring

Identifiers

PMID24396499
PMCPMC3881222

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.