Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30040817›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2018

Randomised feasibility trial to compare three standard of care chemotherapy regimens for early stage triple-negative breast cancer (REaCT-TNBC trial).

John Hilton, Carol Stober, Sasha Mazzarello, Lisa Vandermeer, Dean Fergusson, Brian Hutton, Mark Clemons

Registry-linked trialAbstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02688803 (Multicentre Study to Determine the Feasibility of Using an Integrated Consent Model to Compare Three Standard of Care Regimens for The Treatment of Triple-Negative Breast Cancer in the Neoadjuvant/Adjuvant Setting), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT02688803 phase4terminatednot on this map

Multicentre Study to Determine the Feasibility of Using an Integrated Consent Model to Compare Three Standard of Care Regimens for The Treatment of Triple-Negative Breast Cancer in the Neoadjuvant/Adjuvant Setting (REaCT-TNBC) OTT 15-04

TypeinterventionalSponsorOttawa Hospital Research InstituteRan2016 to 2017Enrolled2ConditionsBreast CancerArmsDose dense AC-P, Dose dense AC, FEC-D
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. 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

7 authors.

John HiltonDepartment of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, The Ottawa Hospital and University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Carol StoberOttawa Hospital Research Institute and University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Sasha MazzarelloOttawa Hospital Research Institute and University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Lisa VandermeerOttawa Hospital Research Institute and University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Dean FergussonClinical Epidemiology Program, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Brian HuttonClinical Epidemiology Program, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Mark ClemonsDepartment of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, The Ottawa Hospital and University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0738-2713

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDespite the importance of chemotherapy in the treatment of early stage triple negative breast cancer (TNBC), no one optimal regimen has been identified. We conducted a pilot trial comparing outcomes for the three most commonly used chemotherapy regimens to assess the feasibility of conducting a larger definitive trial.

methodsUsing integrated consent, newly diagnosed TNBC patients were randomised to one of three standard regimens: dose-dense doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide then paclitaxel, doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide then weekly paclitaxel or 5-FU-epirubicin-cyclophosphamide then docetaxel. Feasibility endpoints included; physician engagement, accrual rates, physician compliance and patient satisfaction with the integrated consent model. Our anticipated pilot trial sample size was 35 randomised patients in one year.

resultsBetween August 30th, 2016 and January 31st 2017, 2 patients met eligibility and were randomised. A survey of 10 participating oncologists was performed to identify potential strategies to enhance accrual. Most investigators (9/10) believed that the best regimen for TNBC was unknown, and 4/10 felt this was a pressing clinical question. Physicians' responses suggested that poor accrual was due to: a lack of interest in some study arms as oncologists already had a preferred regimen (4/10) and concerns about trial demands in busy clinics (3/10). The pilot feasibility endpoints were not met and the study was closed.

conclusionsDespite initial interest in the trial question and multiple investigators agreeing to approach patients, this trial failed to meet feasibility endpoints. The reasons for poor accrual were multiple and require further evaluation if this important patient-centred question is to be answered.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02688803.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsCyclophosphamideDocetaxelDoxorubicinEndpoint DeterminationEpirubicinFeasibility StudiesFemaleFluorouracilGuideline AdherenceHumansMiddle AgedPaclitaxelPilot ProjectsCyclophosphamideDocetaxelDoxorubicinEpirubicinFluorouracilPaclitaxel

Identifiers

PMID30040817
PMCPMC6057636

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.