ArticlePloS one2020
Change in therapeutic management after the EndoPredict assay in a prospective decision impact study of Mexican premenopausal breast cancer patients.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Decision impact studies, evidence of clinical utility for genomic assays in cancer: A scoping review.PloS one · 2023Article
- Concordance between Ki-67 index in invasive breast cancer and molecular signatures: EndoPredict and MammaPrint.Molecular and clinical oncology · 2022Article
- Clinical utility of genomic signatures in young breast cancer patients: a systematic review.NPJ breast cancer · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the change in adjuvant therapeutic decision in a cohort of young women with breast cancer discussed by a multidisciplinary team, before and after EndoPredict testing. PATIENTS AND
methods99 premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, T1-T2, and N0-N1 breast cancer were included. Clinicopathological characteristics were recorded and cases were presented in a multidisciplinary tumor board. Consensual therapeutic decisions before and after EndoPredict results were registered. Medical records were reviewed at six-month follow-up to determine physicians' adherence to therapeutic recommendations. Pearson chi-square and McNemar's tests were used to analyze differences between groups and changes in treatment recommendations, respectively.
resultsMedian age at diagnosis was 43 years. The most frequent tumor size was pT2 (53.5%) and 27% of patients had 1-3 positive lymph nodes. 46% of patients had a low-risk EPclin result. Nodal status and tumor grade were significantly associated with EPclin result (p < .00001 and p = .0110, respectively), while Ki67 levels and age ≤40 years were not. A change in chemotherapy decision was registered in 19.2% of patients (p = .066), with the greatest impact in de-escalation (9% net reduction). A change in chemotherapy or endocrine therapy regimen was suggested in 19% and 20% of cases, respectively, after EPclin results were available. A significant difference was found in the median EPclin score between patients with a low- vs. high-intensity chemotherapy and endocrine therapy regimen recommendation (p = 0.049 and p = 0.0001, respectively). Tumor board treatment recommendation adherence with the EndoPredict result was 95% and final treatment adherence to EPclin result was 93%.
conclusionsThe EndoPredict test successfully assisted the clinical decision-making process in premenopausal patients, with a clinically significant change in overall decision-making, with the greatest impact seen in chemotherapy reduction, and a high rate of therapeutic adherence.
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.