Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27051399›Full record

ArticleBreast care (Basel, Switzerland)2016

ABC3 Consensus: Assessment by a German Group of Experts.

Christoph Thomssen, Doris Augustin, Johannes Ettl, Renate Haidinger, Hans-Joachim Lück, Diana Lüftner, Frederik Marmé, Norbert Marschner, Lothar Müller, Friedrich Overkamp and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Breast care (Basel, Switzerland), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Christoph ThomssenUniversity Clinic and Outpatient Clinic of Gynecology, Martin-Luther-University, Halle an der Saale, Germany.
Doris AugustinBreast Center of Eastern Bavaria, DONAUISAR Hospital, Deggendorf, Germany.
Johannes EttlGynecology Outpatient Clinic, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University Munich, Germany.
Renate HaidingerBrustkrebs Deutschland e.V., Munich, Germany.
Hans-Joachim LückGyneco-Oncological Practice, Hanover, Germany.
Diana LüftnerMedical Clinic focusing on Hematology, Oncology and Tumor Immunology, Charité Berlin, Benjamin Franklin Campus, Berlin, Germany.
Frederik MarméGyneco-Oncology Section, National Center of Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany.
Norbert MarschnerJoint Practice for Interdisciplinary Oncology and Hematology, Freiburg i.Br., Germany.
Lothar MüllerOnkologie UnterEms Leer-Emden-Papenburg, Leer, Germany.
Friedrich OverkampMedical Oncologist, OncoConsult. Hamburg GmbH, Hamburg, Germany.
Eugen RuckhäberleWomen's Hospital, University Hospital Düsseldorf, Germany.
Marc ThillClinic for Gynecology and Obstetrics, Interdisciplinary Breast Center, Agaplesion Markus Hospital, Frankfurt/M., Germany.
Michael UntchGynecology Clinic, HELIOS Hospital Berlin Buch, Berlin, Germany.
Rachel WuerstleinBreast Center, University of Munich, Germany.
Nadia HarbeckBreast Center, University of Munich, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Advanced Breast Cancer Third International Consensus Conference on the diagnosis and treatment of advanced breast cancer took place in Lisbon, Portugal, on November 5-7, 2015. This year's conference (ABC3) was focused on the treatment of metastatic breast cancer (stage IV), as it was 4 years ago at the first consensus meeting (ABC1). A matter of particular interest was the patients' perspective. Thus, patient-relevant issues were addressed by the consensus discussions, such as those on treatment goals, quality of life, care of long-term survivors ('survivorship issues'), and coping with disease-related symptoms and the side effects of treatment. Further important issues on the agenda were the use of standardized instruments for the assessment of individual treatment success ('patient-reported outcome measures') and the evaluation of the benefit of novel drugs (e.g. the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale). Diagnosis and treatment of inoperable locally advanced breast cancer had already been discussed 2 years earlier at the ABC2 Consensus and were not dealt with in the framework of this year's ABC3 Consensus. With regard to country-specific peculiarities, which unavoidably found their way into the ABC Consensus, a working group of German breast cancer experts commented on the voting results of the ABC panelists. As for the past consensus, the group specially considered the German guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer (AGO (Gyneco-Oncology Working Group), S3, DGHO (German Society of Hematology and Medical Oncology)) in order to adapt the ABC3 consensus for everyday therapy in Germany.

Indexed as

ABC3 Consensus 2015Breast Cancer, metastaticPatient-relevant issues

Identifiers

PMID27051399
PMCPMC4813642

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.