Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27992550›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2016

Do Patients with Luminal A Breast Cancer Profit from Adjuvant Systemic Therapy? A Retrospective Multicenter Study.

Joachim Diessner, Manfred Wischnewsky, Maria Blettner, Sebastian Häusler, Wolfgang Janni, Rolf Kreienberg, Roland Stein, Tanja Stüber, Lukas Schwentner, Catharina Bartmann and 1 more

Abstract readClinical TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. The Notch Pathway in Breast Cancer Progression.TheScientificWorldJournal · 2018
    Review
  11. 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

11 authors.

Joachim DiessnerDepartment for Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Würzburg Medical School, Würzburg, Germany.
Manfred WischnewskyFaculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Bremen Bremen, Germany.
Maria BlettnerInstitut für Medizinische Biometrie, Epidemiologie und Informatik (IMBEI), University of Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Sebastian HäuslerDepartment for Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Würzburg Medical School, Würzburg, Germany.
Wolfgang JanniDepartment for Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Ulm Medical School Ulm, Germany.
Rolf KreienbergDepartment for Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Ulm Medical School Ulm, Germany.
Roland SteinDepartment for Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Würzburg Medical School, Würzburg, Germany.
Tanja StüberDepartment for Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Würzburg Medical School, Würzburg, Germany.
Lukas SchwentnerDepartment for Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Ulm Medical School Ulm, Germany.
Catharina BartmannDepartment for Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Würzburg Medical School, Würzburg, Germany.
Achim WöckelDepartment for Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Würzburg Medical School, Würzburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLuminal A breast cancers respond well to anti-hormonal therapy (HT), are associated with a generally favorable prognosis and constitute the majority of breast cancer subtypes. HT is the mainstay of treatment of these patients, accompanied by an acceptable profile of side effects, whereas the added benefit of chemotherapy (CHT), including anthracycline and taxane-based programs, is less clear-cut and has undergone a process of critical revision.

methodsIn the framework of the BRENDA collective, we analyzed the benefits of CHT compared to HT in 4570 luminal A patients (pts) with primary diagnosis between 2001 and 2008. The results were adjusted by nodal status, age, tumor size and grading.

resultsThere has been a progressive reduction in the use of CHT in luminal A patients during the last decade. Neither univariate nor multivariate analyses showed any statistically significant differences in relapse free survival (RFS) with the addition of CHT to adjuvant HT, independent of the nodal status, age, tumor size or grading. Even for patients with more than 3 affected lymph nodes, there was no significant difference (univariate: p = 0.865; HR 0.94; 95% CI: 0.46-1.93; multivariate: p = 0.812; HR 0.92; 95% CI: 0.45-1.88).

conclusionsThe addition of CHT to HT provides minimal or no clinical benefit at all to patients with luminal A breast cancer, independent of the RFS-risk. Consequently, risk estimation cannot be the initial step in the decisional process. These findings-that are in line with several publications-should encourage the critical evaluation of applying adjuvant CHT to patients with luminal A breast cancer.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overBreast NeoplasmsChemotherapy, AdjuvantDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleHumansMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSurvival Rate

Identifiers

PMID27992550
PMCPMC5167411

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.