Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28549010›Full record

Trial reportAnnals of surgery2018

A Clinical Feasibility Trial for Identification of Exceptional Responders in Whom Breast Cancer Surgery Can Be Eliminated Following Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy.

Henry M Kuerer, Gaiane M Rauch, Savitri Krishnamurthy, Beatriz E Adrada, Abigail S Caudle, Sarah M DeSnyder, Dalliah M Black, Lumarie Santiago, Brian P Hobbs, Anthony Lucci and 12 more

Open access · greenAbstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Annals of surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 103 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
103citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

103 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 187 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

43 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

22 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Henry M KuererDepartment of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Gaiane M RauchDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Savitri KrishnamurthyDepartment of Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Beatriz E AdradaDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Abigail S CaudleDepartment of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Sarah M DeSnyderDepartment of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Dalliah M BlackDepartment of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Lumarie SantiagoDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Brian P HobbsDepartment of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Anthony LucciDepartment of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Michael GilcreaseDepartment of Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Rosa F HwangDepartment of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Rosalind P CandelariaDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Mariana Chavez-MacGregorDepartment of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Benjamin D SmithDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Elsa ArribasDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Tanya MoseleyDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Mediget TeshomeDepartment of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Makesha V MigginsDepartment of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Vicente ValeroHealth Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Kelly K HuntDepartment of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Wei T YangDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · US

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Scott Kopetz · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine the accuracy of fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and vacuum-assisted core biopsy (VACB) in assessing the presence of residual cancer in the breast after neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Pathologic complete response (pCR) rates after NST have improved dramatically, suggesting that surgery might be avoided in some patients. Safe avoidance of surgery would require accurate confirmation of no residual invasive/in situ carcinoma.

methodsForty patients with T1-3N0-3 triple-negative or HER2-positive cancer receiving NST were enrolled in this single-center prospective trial. Patients underwent ultrasound-guided or mammography-guided FNA and VACB of the initial breast tumor region before surgery. Findings were compared with findings on pathologic evaluation of surgical specimens to determine the performance of biopsy in predicting residual breast disease after NST.

resultsMedian initial clinical tumor size was 3.3 cm (range, 1.2-7.0 cm); 16 patients (40%) had biopsy-proven nodal metastases. After NST, median clinical tumor size was 1.1 cm (range, 0-4.2 cm). Nineteen patients (47.5%) had a breast pCR and were concordant with pathologic nodal status in 97.5%. Combined FNA/VACB demonstrated an accuracy of 98% (95% CI, 87%-100%), false-negative rate of 5% (95% CI, 0%-24%), and negative predictive value of 95% (95% CI, 75%-100%) in predicting residual breast cancer. VACB alone was more accurate than FNA alone (P = 0.011).

conclusionsAfter NST, image-guided FNA/VACB can accurately identify patients with a breast pCR. Based on these results, a prospective clinical trial has commenced in which breast surgery is omitted in patients with a breast pCR after NST according to image-guided biopsy.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAntineoplastic AgentsAxillaBreast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Ductal, BreastChemotherapy, AdjuvantFeasibility StudiesFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansImage-Guided BiopsyLymphatic MetastasisMammographyMastectomyMiddle AgedAntineoplastic Agents

Identifiers

PMID28549010
PMCPMC6051523
OpenAlexW2619779895

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.