Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26169362›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2015

Locally ablative treatment of breast cancer liver metastases: identification of factors influencing survival (the Mammary Cancer Microtherapy and Interventional Approaches (MAMMA MIA) study).

Max Seidensticker, Benjamin Garlipp, Sophia Scholz, Konrad Mohnike, Felix Popp, Ingo Steffen, Ricarda Seidensticker, Patrick Stübs, Maciej Pech, Maciej PowerskI and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Hepatic Metastasis from Breast Cancer.Seminars in interventional radiology · 2020
    Review
  5. Review
  6. 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

15 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Max SeidenstickerKlinik für Radiologie und Nuklearmedizin, Universitätsklinik Magdeburg, Leipziger Strasse 44, 39120, Magdeburg, Germany. max.seidensticker@med.ovgu.de.
Benjamin GarlippUniversitätsklinik Magdeburg, Klinik für Allgemein, Viszeral- und Gefäßchirurgie, Magdeburg, Germany. benjamin.garlipp@med.ovgu.de.
Sophia ScholzKlinik für Radiologie und Nuklearmedizin, Universitätsklinik Magdeburg, Leipziger Strasse 44, 39120, Magdeburg, Germany. soscholz@googlemail.com.
Konrad MohnikeKlinik für Radiologie und Nuklearmedizin, Universitätsklinik Magdeburg, Leipziger Strasse 44, 39120, Magdeburg, Germany. konrad.mohnike@med.ovgu.de.
Felix PoppUniversitätsklinik Magdeburg, Klinik für Allgemein, Viszeral- und Gefäßchirurgie, Magdeburg, Germany. felix.popp@med.ovgu.de.
Ingo SteffenKlinik für Radiologie und Nuklearmedizin, Universitätsklinik Magdeburg, Leipziger Strasse 44, 39120, Magdeburg, Germany. ingo.steffen@med.ovgu.de.
Ricarda SeidenstickerKlinik für Radiologie und Nuklearmedizin, Universitätsklinik Magdeburg, Leipziger Strasse 44, 39120, Magdeburg, Germany. ricarda.seidensticker@med.ovgu.de.
Patrick StübsUniversitätsklinik Magdeburg, Klinik für Allgemein, Viszeral- und Gefäßchirurgie, Magdeburg, Germany. patrick.stuebs@med.ovgu.de.
Maciej PechKlinik für Radiologie und Nuklearmedizin, Universitätsklinik Magdeburg, Leipziger Strasse 44, 39120, Magdeburg, Germany. maciej.pech@med.ovgu.de.
Maciej PowerskIKlinik für Radiologie und Nuklearmedizin, Universitätsklinik Magdeburg, Leipziger Strasse 44, 39120, Magdeburg, Germany. maciej.powerski@med.ovgu.de.
Peter HassInstitut für Strahlentherapie, Universitätsklinik Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Germany. peter.hass@med.ovgu.de.
Serban-Dan CostaUniversitätsklinik Magdeburg, Universitätsfrauenklinik, Magdeburg, Germany. serban-dan.costa@med.ovgu.de.
Holger AmthauerKlinik für Radiologie und Nuklearmedizin, Universitätsklinik Magdeburg, Leipziger Strasse 44, 39120, Magdeburg, Germany. holger.amthauer@med.ovgu.de.
Christiane BrunsInternational School of Image-Guided Interventions, Deutsche Akademie für Mikrotherapie, Magdeburg, Germany. christiane.bruns@med.ovgu.de.
Jens RickeKlinik für Radiologie und Nuklearmedizin, Universitätsklinik Magdeburg, Leipziger Strasse 44, 39120, Magdeburg, Germany. jens.ricke@med.ovgu.de.
Klinikum Magdeburg · DEAcatech · DEGuardia Civil · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLiver metastases from breast cancer (LMBC) are typically considered to indicate systemic disease spread and patients are most often offered systemic palliative treatment only. However, retrospective studies suggest that some patients may have improved survival with local treatment of their liver metastases compared to systemic therapy alone. In the absence of randomized trials, it is important to identify patient characteristics indicating that benefit from local treatment can be expected.

methods59 patients undergoing radiofrequency ablation (RFA), interstitial brachytherapy (BT), or radioembolization (RE) of LMBC as a salvage treatment were studied. Potential factors influencing survival were analyzed in a multivariate Cox model. For factors identified to have an independent survival impact, Kaplan-Meier analysis and comparison of overall survival (OS) using the log-rank test was performed.

resultsMedian OS following local interventional treatment was 21.9 months. Considering only factors evaluable at treatment initiation, maximum diameter of liver metastases (≥3.9 cm; HR: 3.1), liver volume (≥ 1376 mL; HR: 2.3), and history of prior chemotherapy (≥ 3 lines of treatment; HR: 2.5-2.6) showed an independent survival impact. When follow-up data were included in the analysis, significant factors were maximum diameter of liver metastases (≥ 3.9 cm; HR: 3.1), control of LMBC during follow-up (HR: 0.29), and objective response as best overall response (HR: 0.21). Neither the presence of any extrahepatic metastases nor presence of bone metastases only had a significant survival impact. Median OS was 38.7 vs. 16.1 months in patients with metastases < vs. ≥ 3.9 cm, 36.6 vs. 10.2 months for patients having objective response vs. stable/progressive disease, and 38.5 vs. 14.2 months for patients having controlled vs. non-controlled disease at follow-up.

conclusionLocal control of LMBC confers a survival benefit and local interventional treatment for LMBC should be studied in a randomized trial. Patients with small metastases and limited history of systemic LMBC treatment are most likely to benefit from local approaches. Limited extrahepatic disease should not lead to exclusion from a randomized study and should not be a contraindication for local LMBC treatment as long as no randomized data are available.

Indexed as

Catheter AblationAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBrachytherapyBreast NeoplasmsCombined Modality TherapyDisease ProgressionFemaleHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateLiver NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID26169362
PMCPMC4501116
OpenAlexW1534319244

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.