ArticleBMC cancer2018
Adjuvant trastuzumab duration trials in HER2 positive breast cancer - what results would be practice-changing? Persephone investigator questionnaire prior to primary endpoint results.
Article in BMC cancer, 2018. 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.
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTwelve months treatment is the current standard of care for adjuvant trastuzumab in patients with HER2 positive early breast cancer however the optimal duration is not known. Persephone is a non-inferiority randomised controlled trial comparing 6- to 12-months of trastuzumab. In this trial there will be a trade-off between a possible small decrease in disease-free survival (DFS) with 6-months and reduced cardiotoxicity and cost.
methodsA structured questionnaire asked clinicians who had recruited patients into the Persephone trial about their prior beliefs with regards to the clinical effectiveness of trastuzumab and cardiotoxicity profile, in the comparison of 6- and 12-month durations.
resultsFifty-one clinicians from 40 of the 152 Persephone sites completed the questionnaire. 30/50 responders (60%) believed that 6-months trastuzumab would give the same 4-year DFS rate as 12-months trastuzumab, with 21/50 (42%) holding this belief across all breast cancer subsets. In addition, 46/49 responders (94%) reported expecting to change their clinical practice to 6-months, with their prior beliefs (most commonly 85% 4-year DFS rate with 6-months) being greater than their lowest acceptable rate (most commonly 83% 4-year DFS rate with 6-months). Low levels of cardiotoxicity were expected with both 6 and 12-months trastuzumab, with the majority expecting lower levels with 6-months. With increasing hypothesised differences of cardiotoxicity rates between the two durations, significantly lower levels of 4-year DFS with 6-months trastuzumab were deemed acceptable (p < 0.0001).
conclusionMost responders believe that 6-months trastuzumab is adequate, both overall and within each subset of breast cancer, and plan to change their clinical practice if the Persephone results support their prior belief. An individual patient meta-analysis of the duration trials would give greater precision to estimates of the differences in efficacy and toxicity, and adequate statistical power to establish a 2% level of non-inferiority for 6-months adjuvant trastuzumab.
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.