Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28205042›Full record

ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2017

Screening-relevant age threshold of 70 years and older is a stronger determinant for the choice of adjuvant treatment in breast cancer patients than tumor biology.

E C Inwald, O Ortmann, M Koller, F Zeman, F Hofstädter, M Evert, G Brockhoff, M Klinkhammer-Schalke

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Defining Undertreatment and Overtreatment in Older Adults With Cancer: A Scoping Literature Review.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2020
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

E C InwaldDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Medical Center Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany. elisabeth.inwald@klinik.uni-regensburg.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8731-8481
O OrtmannDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Medical Center Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
M KollerCenter for Clinical Studies, University Hospital Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
F ZemanCenter for Clinical Studies, University Hospital Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
F HofstädterTumor Center Regensburg, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
M EvertInstitute of Pathology, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
G BrockhoffDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Medical Center Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
M Klinkhammer-SchalkeTumor Center Regensburg, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
University Hospital Regensburg · DEUniversity of Regensburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe 70-year threshold determines whether patients are eligible or not for the breast cancer screening program in Germany. It is not known whether this age threshold also influences the choice of adjuvant treatment and ultimate outcome.

methods3463 patients were analyzed from the clinical cancer registry Regensburg (Germany) with primary, non-metastatic invasive breast cancer diagnosed between 2000 and 2012. The distribution of tumor biological subtypes was evaluated in breast cancer patients both in those eligible for screening (ESG, 50-69 years) and those not eligible for screening (NESG, ≥70 years). Local and systemic therapies in different subtypes as well as overall survival (OS) were analyzed.

results2171 patients (62.7%) pertained to the ESG and 1292 patients (37.3%) referred to the NESG. The distribution of the common subtypes Luminal A, Luminal B, HER2-like, and Basal-like was comparable in both groups. Treatment varied considerably with less systemic therapies in all subtypes in patients in the NESG. Regarding local therapies, patients in the NESG also received less surgery and less radiotherapy. As to Luminal A patients, best OS was seen in patients receiving endocrine therapy (ET) (7-year OS of 95.6%) and CHT plus ET (7-year OS of 93.1%) in the ESG. In the NESG, best OS was seen in patients receiving CHT plus ET (7-year OS of 95.2%), whereas patients receiving only ET had a 7-year OS of 73.9%.

conclusionsDespite similar tumor biology, elderly patients are undertreated regarding both systemic and local therapies compared to younger patients, leading to reduced OS.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overBreast NeoplasmsChemotherapy, AdjuvantErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesFemaleGermanyHealthcare DisparitiesHumansMass ScreeningMastectomyMiddle AgedPrognosisRadiotherapy, AdjuvantSurvival AnalysisTreatment OutcomeERBB2 protein, humanErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesBreast cancerCancer registryElderly patientsMammography screeningOverall survivalTumor biological subtypes

Identifiers

PMID28205042
PMCPMC5387012
OpenAlexW2588467807

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.