Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31989290›Full record

ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2020

Survivors of primary breast cancer 5 years after surgery: follow-up care, long-term problems, and treatment regrets. Results of the prospective BRENDA II-study.

Elena Leinert, Rolf Kreienberg, Achim Wöckel, Thorsten Kühn, Felix Flock, Ricardo Felberbaum, Wolfgang Janni, Kathy Taylor, Susanne Singer, Lukas Schwentner and 1 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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.

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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Financial difficulties in breast cancer survivors with and without migration background in Germany-results from the prospective multicentre cohort study BRENDA II.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

11 authors.

Elena LeinertDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, University of Ulm, Prittwitzstr 43, 89075, Ulm, Germany. elena.leinert@uniklinik-ulm.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5795-3417
Rolf KreienbergDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, University of Ulm, Prittwitzstr 43, 89075, Ulm, Germany.
Achim WöckelDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany.
Thorsten KühnDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Hospital Esslingen, Esslingen, Germany.
Felix FlockDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Hospital Memmingen, Memmingen, Germany.
Ricardo FelberbaumDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Hospital Kempten, Kempten, Germany.
Wolfgang JanniDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, University of Ulm, Prittwitzstr 43, 89075, Ulm, Germany.
Kathy TaylorInstitute of Medical Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, University Medical Centre, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Susanne SingerInstitute of Medical Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, University Medical Centre, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Lukas SchwentnerDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, University of Ulm, Prittwitzstr 43, 89075, Ulm, Germany.
BRENDA study group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study aims to answer the questions where breast cancer patients in Germany receive follow-up care (with what types of doctors) and what are the long-term problems and treatment regrets of breast cancer patients.

methodsIn the prospective multicenter cohort study BRENDA II ("Breast Cancer under Evidence-Based Guidelines"), 456 patients with primary breast cancer were sampled consecutively over a period of 4 years (2009-2012) and contacted again 5 years after surgery. Long-term problems were elicited on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 0 ('not at all') to 3 ('very much').

results82% of the patients receive follow-up (FU) at the private practice gynecologist. In 22%, the initial treating hospital is involved in the FU, and in 20% the general practitioner does this (multiple answers possible). Long-term problems attributed to the treatment were most often related to endocrine therapy (mean 1.29) and to chemotherapy (mean 0.94). Most of the patients were happy to have had radiotherapy (95%). For chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, and antibody therapy, the satisfaction for the treatment decision was 87%, 87%, and 84% respectively. Among patients who reported they regretted having undergone a recommended treatment, it was most often for endocrine therapy (5%) and chemotherapy (4%).

conclusionIn Germany, different specialists are involved in the patients' FU care for BC. The detection of long-term problems due to BC treatment is an essential part of FU care.

Indexed as

AdultAftercareAgedAged, 80 and overBreast NeoplasmsCohort StudiesFemaleHumansLong-Term CareMiddle AgedProspective StudiesSurvivorsTime FactorsBreast cancerBreast cancer survivorsFollow-upLong-term problemsTreatment regrets

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.