Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27481512›Full record

Trial reportTumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine2016

CA27.29 as a tumour marker for risk evaluation and therapy monitoring in primary breast cancer patients.

Brigitte Rack, Julia Jückstock, Elisabeth Trapp, Tobias Weissenbacher, Marianna Alunni-Fabbroni, Amelie Schramm, Peter Widschwendter, Krisztian Lato, Thomas Zwingers, Ralf Lorenz and 8 more

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Tumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. 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

18 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Brigitte RackKlinik und Poliklinik für Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe Campus Innenstadt, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitaet Muenchen, Maistr. 11, 80337, Munich, Germany. brigitte.rack@med.uni-muenchen.de.
Julia JückstockKlinik und Poliklinik für Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe Campus Innenstadt, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitaet Muenchen, Maistr. 11, 80337, Munich, Germany.
Elisabeth TrappKlinik und Poliklinik für Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe Campus Innenstadt, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitaet Muenchen, Maistr. 11, 80337, Munich, Germany.
Tobias WeissenbacherKlinik und Poliklinik für Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe Campus Innenstadt, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitaet Muenchen, Maistr. 11, 80337, Munich, Germany.
Marianna Alunni-FabbroniKlinik und Poliklinik für Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe Campus Innenstadt, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitaet Muenchen, Maistr. 11, 80337, Munich, Germany.
Amelie SchrammUniversitätsfrauenklinik Ulm, Prittwitzstrasse, 43 89075, Ulm, Germany.
Peter WidschwendterUniversitätsfrauenklinik Ulm, Prittwitzstrasse, 43 89075, Ulm, Germany.
Krisztian LatoUniversitätsfrauenklinik Ulm, Prittwitzstrasse, 43 89075, Ulm, Germany.
Thomas Zwingersestimate GmbH, Konrad-Adenauer-Allee 1, 86150, Augsburg, Germany.
Ralf LorenzPraxis Lorenz/Hecker, Hagenmarkt 19-20, 38100, Braunschweig, Germany.
Hans TeschPraxis Prof. Tesch, Im Prüfling 17-19, 60389, Frankfurt, Germany.
Andreas SchneeweissNational Center for Tumor Diseases, University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 460, D-69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Peter FaschingUniversitaetsfrauenklinik Erlangen, Universitaetsstrasse 21-23, D-, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.
Sven MahnerKlinik und Poliklinik für Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe Campus Innenstadt, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitaet Muenchen, Maistr. 11, 80337, Munich, Germany.
Matthias W BeckmannNational Center for Tumor Diseases, University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 460, D-69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Werner LichteneggerFrauenklinik des Universitaetsklinikums Charité Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Augustenburger Platz 1, D-, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Wolfgang JanniUniversitätsfrauenklinik Ulm, Prittwitzstrasse, 43 89075, Ulm, Germany.
SUCCESS Study Group
Klinik für Frauenheilkunde · DEHeidelberg University · DEUniversitäts Frauenklinik · DEKonrad-Adenauer-Stiftung · DEOrthopädische Praxis · DEUniversitätsklinikum Erlangen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Several trials showed that tumour markers are associated with an impaired prognosis for breast cancer. Whether earlier treatment can improve the course of the disease remains controversial. The SUCCESS Trial compares FEC (500/100/500)-docetaxel (100) vs. FEC (500/100/500)-docetaxel/gemcitabine (75/2000) as well as 2 vs. 5 years of zoledronate in high-risk primary breast cancer patients. In 2669 patients, CA27.29 was measured before and after chemotherapy with the ST AIA-PACK CA27.29 reagent for the AIA-600II automated enzyme immunoassay (Tosoh Bioscience, Belgium). Values above 31 U/ml were considered positive. Of the patients, 7.6 % (n = 202, mean 19, range 3-410) and 19.1 % (n = 511, mean 21, range 3-331) had elevated marker levels before and after chemotherapy, respectively. Of the patients, 4.9 and 78 % showed elevated and low CA27.29, respectively, at both time points. After treatment, 35 % of the pre-therapy positive patients were negative, and 15 % of the initially negative patients became positive. The correlation between both time points was significant (p < 0.0001). No correlations among nodal status, grading, hormonal status, HER2 status and CA27.29 levels were found. However, tumour size (p = 0.02), older age (p < 0.001) and post-menopausal status (p = 0.006) were significantly associated with higher CA27.29 levels. Before treatment, the prevalence of elevated CA27.29 was equally distributed between both treatment arms, whereas after chemotherapy, 13.7 % of the patients in the FEC-doc arm showed an increased level vs. 25.4 % of the patients in the FEC-doc/gemcitabine arm (p < 0.0001). However, we could not show a significant association between the G-CSF application (yes vs. no) and CA27.29 status before/after chemotherapy (p = 0.75). These results indicate a close relationship between CA27.29 levels and tumour mass. Increased values after the completion of chemotherapy might be attributed to treatment effects and should be considered with caution.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAntigens, Tumor-Associated, CarbohydrateAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsBiomarkers, TumorBreast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Ductal, BreastCarcinoma, LobularChemotherapy, AdjuvantFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansLymphatic MetastasisMiddle AgedNeoplasm InvasivenessNeoplasm StagingAntigens, Tumor-Associated, CarbohydrateBiomarkers, TumorCA 27-29 antigenBreast cancerCA27.29ChemotherapyTreatment monitoringTumour marker

Identifiers

PMID27481512
OpenAlexW2487498391

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.