ReviewBreast (Edinburgh, Scotland)2020
A multi-stakeholder approach in optimising patients' needs in the benefit assessment process of new metastatic breast cancer treatments.
Review in Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Exploring the experiences of women living with metastatic breast cancer [MBC]: A systematic review of qualitative evidence.PloS one · 2024Pooled it
- Qualitative Findings From a Survey Measuring Informational Needs and Quality of Life of Women Living With Metastatic Breast Cancer.Psycho-oncology · 2025Article
- Male Breast Cancer: Epidemiology, Diagnosis, Molecular Mechanisms, Therapeutics, and Future Prospective.Oncology research · 2025Review
- Characterizing cancer-related cognitive impairments and impact on quality of life in women with metastatic breast cancer.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2025Article
- "What's measured gets done": a call for a European semester for cancer to improve cancer outcomes in Central and Southeastern Europe.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2023Article
- Exploring the Important Determinants Shaping Treatment Preferences: Qualitative Insights into Breast Cancer Patient Experiences and Perspectives in New Zealand.Patient preference and adherence · 2023Article
- Real-World Patient Characteristics, Utilization Patterns, and Outcomes of US Patients with HR+, HER2- Metastatic Breast Cancer Treated with Abemaciclib.Drugs - real world outcomes · 2022Article
- 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is a growing understanding as science evolves that different cancer types require different approaches to treatment evaluation, especially in the metastatic stages. The introduction of new metastatic breast cancer (MBC) treatments may be hindered by several elements, including the availability of relevant evidence related to disease-specific outcomes, the benefit assessment process around the evaluation of the clinical benefit and the patients' need of new treatments. The Steering Committee (SC) found that not all issues relevant to MBC patients are consistently considered in the current benefit assessment process of new treatments. Among these are overall survival, time-to-event endpoints (e.g. progression-free survival), patients' priorities, burden of disease, MBC-specific quality of life, value in delaying chemotherapy, route of administration, side effects and toxicities, treatment adherence and the benefit of real-world evidence. This paper calls on decision makers to (1) Include MBC-specific patient priorities and outcomes in the overall benefit assessments of new MBC treatments; (2) Enhance multi-stakeholder collaboration in order to improve MBC patient outcomes.
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.