ArticleOncotarget2017
Evaluating the efficacy of post-surgery adjuvant therapies used for ductal carcinoma
Article in Oncotarget, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Does margin width impact breast cancer recurrence rates in women with breast conserving surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ?Breast cancer research and treatment · 2021Article
- Association of Radiotherapy With Survival in Women Treated for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ With Lumpectomy or Mastectomy.JAMA network open · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePost-surgery adjuvant therapies are very important for patients suffering from ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). In this study we conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) to evaluate the efficacy of different post-surgery adjuvant therapies including tamoxifen, anastrozole and radiation therapy (RT) and their combinations (RT+ tamoxifen and RT+ anastrozole).
methodsWe searched several databases, including Embase, MEDLINE / PUBMED, Cochrane Library, and Science Citation Index, for relevant studies. We then extracted the data from eligible studies in order to perform our NMA. We measured the comparative efficacy of each treatment option based on the calculated odds ratios (ORs) and the corresponding 95% credibility interval (95%CrI) for each treatment option. We calculated the surfaces under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA) in order to rank the therapies according to their different outcomes.
resultsIn this study, local recurrence (LC) was chosen as the primary outcome. Metastasis, contralateral-breast cancer (CBC), ipsilateral-breast cancer (IBC) and death were secondary outcomes. Patients treated with RT and RT + tamoxifen exhibited a lower risk of LC compared with control group (OR=0.54, 95%CrI: 0.40-0.73; OR=0.41, 95%CrI: 0.19-0.90). Patients treated by RT and RT + tamoxifen also exhibited a significantly lower risk of IBC compared with control group (OR=0.55, 95%CrI: 0.37-0.82; OR=0.42, 95%CrI: 0.18-0.99). Results from the SUCRA indicated that RT + anastrozole and RT + tamoxifen were potentially the best adjuvant treatments for patients with DCIS.
conclusionsIn conclusion, the RT + anastrozole and RT + tamoxifen are recommended for their performance and effectiveness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.