Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29485067›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics2018

Long-term Patient-Reported Outcomes in Older Breast Cancer Survivors: A Population-Based Survey Study.

Cameron W Swanick, Xiudong Lei, Ying Xu, Yu Shen, Nathan A Goodwin, Grace L Smith, Sharon H Giordano, Kelly K Hunt, Reshma Jagsi, Simona F Shaitelman and 2 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Identifying breast cancer recurrence histories via patient-reported outcomes.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Local Therapy Decisional Regret in Older Women With Breast Cancer: A Population-Based Study.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2019
    Article
  13. 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

12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Cameron W SwanickDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Orlando Health UF Health Cancer Center, Orlando, Florida.
Xiudong LeiDepartment of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Ying XuDepartment of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Yu ShenDepartment of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Nathan A GoodwinDepartment of Behavioral Science, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Grace L SmithDepartment of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Sharon H GiordanoDepartment of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Kelly K HuntDepartment of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Reshma JagsiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Simona F ShaitelmanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Susan K PetersonDepartment of Behavioral Science, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Benjamin D SmithDepartment of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. Electronic address: bsmith3@mdanderson.org.
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USUniversity of Florida Health · USUniversity of Michigan–Ann Arbor · US

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Scott Kopetz · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
Technology Diffusion in Cancer: Geographic Variations, Facilitators, Outcomes, and CostsR01CA207216 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI SHIH, YA-CHEN TINA · 2016 to 2020
$1.6M
Economic Strain and Resilience in Cancer Patients: Assessing Patient-Reported Measures of the Burdens of TreatmentK07CA211804 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI SMITH, GRACE · 2016 to 2020
$853k
NCI NIH HHS K07 CA211804NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672NCI NIH HHS R01 CA207216
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeFor older women with breast cancer, local therapy options may include lumpectomy plus whole-breast irradiation (Lump + WBI), lumpectomy plus brachytherapy (Lump + Brachy), lumpectomy alone (Lump alone), mastectomy without radiation therapy (Mast alone), and mastectomy plus radiation therapy (Mast + RT). We surveyed a population-based cohort of older breast cancer survivors to assess the association of local therapy with long-term quality-of-life outcomes. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We used nationally comprehensive Medicare claims to identify women aged ≥67 years in whom nonmetastatic breast cancer was diagnosed in 2009, who were treated with 1 of the 5 aforementioned treatment options, and who were still alive in 2015. From this cohort, 1650 patients (330 patients per treatment) were randomly selected. A survey that included the CanSORT (Cancer Surveillance and Outcomes Research Team) Satisfaction with Breast Cosmetic Outcome, BREAST-Q, Decisional Regret Scale, and EQ-5D-3L was mailed to potential participants. We used multivariable linear regression to assess associations between local therapy and outcomes after adjusting for patient, disease, and treatment covariates.

resultsAmong the 489 women who returned the surveys (30% response rate), the median age at diagnosis was 72 years (range, 67-87 years). The interval from diagnosis to survey completion was approximately 6 years for all patients. Compared with Lump + WBI (adjusted score, 3.40), the CanSORT cosmetic satisfaction scores were higher for Lump + Brachy (score, 3.77; P = .007) and Lump alone (score, 3.80; P = .04) and lower for Mast + RT (score, 3.01; P = .006). Similar trends were seen for BREAST-Q cosmetic satisfaction. BREAST-Q psychosocial, sexual, and physical well-being and EQ-5D-3L global health status tended to be better in patients treated with less irradiation and less surgery. BREAST-Q adverse radiation effects were worse for Lump + WBI compared with Lump + Brachy. Decisional regret regarding surgery and radiation therapy did not differ across groups. Compared with patients treated with Lump + WBI, patients treated with Lump + Brachy and Lump alone reported slightly higher rates of in-breast recurrence (excess risk of 5.8% and 6.4%, respectively; P = .01).

conclusionsIn this nationally diverse cohort, less irradiation and less surgery were associated with better long-term quality-of-life outcomes. However, patient regret regarding surgery and radiation therapy was similar across all groups.

Indexed as

Cancer SurvivorsPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresQuality of LifeAgedAged, 80 and overAlgorithmsBrachytherapyBreast NeoplasmsCombined Modality TherapyEmotionsFemaleHumansMastectomyMastectomy, SegmentalNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPatient Satisfaction

Identifiers

PMID29485067
PMCPMC5842799
OpenAlexW2771117067

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.