Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26909274›Full record

ArticleJournal of bone oncology2013

De-escalated administration of bone-targeted agents in patients with breast and prostate cancer-A survey of Canadian oncologists.

Brian Hutton, Christina Addison, Sasha Mazzarello, Anil A Joy, Nathaniel Bouganim, Dean Fergusson, Mark Clemons

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of bone oncology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Perceptions around bone-modifying agent use in patients with bone metastases from breast and castration resistant prostate cancer: a patient survey.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Enhancing accrual to chemotherapy trials for patients with early stage triple-negative breast cancer: a survey of physicians and patients.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2017
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Third-party online surveys-science, selling, or sugging?Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2015
    Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Brian HuttonOttawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada; Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Christina AddisonOttawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada; Department of Biochemistry, Microbiology and Immunology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada; Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Sasha MazzarelloOttawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada; Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Anil A JoyDepartment of Oncology, Cross Cancer Institute, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Nathaniel BouganimMcGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Dean FergussonOttawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada; Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Mark ClemonsOttawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada; Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Ottawa Hospital · CAMcGill University Health Centre · CAUniversity of Alberta · CAUniversity of Ottawa · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveQuestions remain regarding the optimal use of bone-targeted agents in patients with metastatic bone disease. The purpose of this study was to assess current clinical practice regarding the use and administration of bone-targeted agents by Canadian oncologists in patients with metastatic breast and prostate cancer.

methodsA survey was designed to explore; bone-targeted agent use in metastatic bone disease, variability in the choice and the frequency of administration of these agents. Opinions were sought on potential outcomes for future trials.

resultsA total of 193 clinicians were contacted and 90 completed our survey (response rate 49% after adjustment for inactivity). Survey respondents were medical oncologists (71.1%), radiation oncologists (21.1%) and urologists (7.8%). The findings suggest that once bone-targeted agents are started they are rarely discontinued. More agents are used in breast cancer than in prostate cancer. There was considerable interest in performing studies of de-escalated therapy in both breast and prostate cancer. Physicians requested (86%) that the primary study endpoint be the occurrence of skeletal related events and not biomarker driven.

conclusionsDespite clinical practice guidelines and widespread use, significant areas of clinical equipoise with respect to use of bone-targeted agents exist. Findings from this survey suggest that physicians are interested in de-escalated therapy for both breast and prostate patients. However, the use of multiple agents in breast cancer and the desire for skeletal related events to be the primary endpoint means that very large randomized studies will be required.

Indexed as

BisphosphonateBone metastasisBone targeted agentSurvey

Identifiers

PMID26909274
PMCPMC4723366
OpenAlexW2063960427

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.