Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29602735›Full record

Trial reportJournal of geriatric oncology2018

The preference to receive chemotherapy and cancer-related outcomes in older adults with breast cancer CALGB 49907 (Alliance).

Ajeet Gajra, Linda McCall, Hyman B Muss, Harvey J Cohen, Aminah Jatoi, Karla V Ballman, Ann H Partridge, Linda Sutton, Barbara A Parker, Gustav Magrinat and 3 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of geriatric oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Development and Validation of Data-Driven Estimates of Recurrence Risk and Treatment Benefit in Early Breast Cancer.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. 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

13 authors.

Ajeet GajraSUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY, United States. Electronic address: gajraa@upstate.edu.
Linda McCallAlliance Statistics and Data Center, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States.
Hyman B MussUNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.
Harvey J CohenDuke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States.
Aminah JatoiMayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
Karla V BallmanMayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States; Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY, United States.
Ann H PartridgeDana-Farber/Partners CancerCare, Boston, MA, United States.
Linda SuttonDuke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States.
Barbara A ParkerUC San Diego Moores Cancer Center, La Jolla, CA, United States.
Gustav MagrinatCone Health Cancer Center, Greensboro, NC, United States.
Heidi D KlepinWake Forest University Health Sciences, Winston-Salem, NC, United States.
Jacqueline M LafkyMayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
Arti HurriaCity of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, CA, United States.

Funding

Member Site CoreU10CA180821 · NCI · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI Evanthia Galanis · 2014 to 2026
$177.3M
Collaborations and NCORP Collective ManagementUG1CA189823 · NCI · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI Evanthia Galanis, Olwen Hahn · 2014 to 2026
$120.6M
Statistics CoreU10CA180882 · NCI · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI Sumithra Jay Mandrekar · 2014 to 2026
$115.0M
Southeast Clinical Oncology Research Consortium, Inc. (SCOR)UG1CA189858 · NCI · SOUTHEAST CLINICAL ONCOL RES CONSORTIUM · PI Judith O Hopkins, William J Irvin · 2014 to 2026
$38.8M
Naional Cancer Institute, Naitonal Clinical Trials Network U10 Lead Academic SiteU10CA180790 · NCI · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI ALBERTS, STEVEN R, BOUGHEY, JUDY CAROLINE · 2014 to 2018
$6.6M
NCTN Lead Academic Participating Site at Dana-Farber/Partners Cancer CareU10CA180867 · NCI · DANA-FARBER CANCER INST · PI BURSTEIN, HAROLD JOHN, KIBEL, ADAM S · 2014 to 2018
$6.2M
NCTN Lead Academic Participating Sites ApplicationU10CA180838 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI CAREY, LISA A · 2014 to 2018
$2.8M
CANCER AND LEUKEMIA GROUP B (CALGB)U10CA003927 · NCI · WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI HURD, DAVID D. · 1985 to 2008
$2.2M
NCI National Clinical Trials Network U10U10CA180857 · NCI · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI BARBORIAK, DANIEL P, BRIZEL, DAVID M · 2014 to 2018
$2.0M
CANCER AND LEUKEMIA GROUP BU10CA007968 · NCI · WEILL MEDICAL COLLEGE OF CORNELL UNIV · PI SILVER, RICHARD T · 1985 to 1992
–
NCI NIH HHS U10 CA003927NCI NIH HHS U10 CA007968NCI NIH HHS U10 CA180790NCI NIH HHS U10 CA180821NCI NIH HHS U10 CA180838NCI NIH HHS U10 CA180857NCI NIH HHS U10 CA180867NCI NIH HHS U10 CA180882NCI NIH HHS UG1 CA189823NCI NIH HHS UG1 CA189858
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveChemotherapy preference refers to a patient's interest in receiving chemotherapy. This study examined whether chemotherapy preference was associated with toxicity, efficacy, quality of life (QoL), and functional outcomes during and after completion of adjuvant chemotherapy in older women with breast cancer. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis study is a secondary analysis of CALGB 49907, a randomized trial that compared standard adjuvant chemotherapy versus capecitabine in patients age 65 years or older with breast cancer. A subset of 145 patients completed a questionnaire to describe chemotherapy preference pre-treatment. The association of this pre-treatment preference with the patient's perception of self-health, predicted and actual QoL, patient- and professional-reported toxicity, mental health, self-rated function, and survival was studied during and after treatment.

resultsThe median age of patients was 71 years and 47% had a high preference for chemotherapy. On baseline demographics, the low preference group had a higher proportion of white patients (95% vs. 78%, p = 0.004). Before treatment, low chemotherapy preference was associated with greater nausea/vomiting (p = 0.008). Mid-treatment, low preference was associated with lower QoL, worse social, emotional and physical function (all p ≤ 0.02) and worse nausea/vomiting, cancer symptoms and financial worries (all p < 0.05). The association noted mid-treatment, resolved after treatment completion except with financial worries which persisted at 24 months. Low preference was associated with higher rates of grade 3-5 adverse events (53% vs. 34%, p = 0.02) but was not associated with survival.

conclusionsLow chemotherapy preference prior to treatment initiation was associated with lower QoL, worse physical symptoms and self-rated function and more adverse events mid-treatment. There is no association of chemotherapy preference with survival.

Indexed as

Patient PreferenceAgedAge FactorsBreast NeoplasmsChemotherapy, AdjuvantDecision MakingFemaleHumansNauseaQuality of LifeSurveys and QuestionnairesTreatment RefusalVomitingAdjuvant chemotherapyBreast cancerDecision-makingElderly

Identifiers

PMID29602735
PMCPMC5967401

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.