Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33997321›Full record

ArticleClinical and translational radiation oncology2021

Jean-Michel Hannoun-Levi, Emmanuel Chamorey, Rabia Boulahssass, Csaba Polgar, Vratislav Strnad, Breast Cancer Working Group of the GEC-ESTRO

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and translational radiation oncology, 2021. 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
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 41% of its field
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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Jean-Michel Hannoun-LeviDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Antoine Lacassagne Cancer Centre, University of Côte d'Azur, Nice, France.
Emmanuel ChamoreyDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Antoine Lacassagne Cancer Centre, University of Cote d'Azur, Nice, France.
Rabia BoulahssassGeriatric Unit. CHU de NICE, FHU ONCOAGE, University of Cote d'Azur, Nice, France.
Csaba PolgarDepartment of Oncology, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Vratislav StrnadDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Erlangen University Hospital, Erlangen, Germany.
Breast Cancer Working Group of the GEC-ESTRO
Centre Antoine Lacassagne · FRSemmelweis University · HUUniversitätsklinikum Erlangen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeBreast cancer in the elderly has become a public health concern; there is a need to re-design its treatment with a view to de-escalation. Our paper sets out the rationale for a phase 3 randomized trial to evaluate less burdensome adjuvant procedures that remain effective and efficient. MATERIALS AND

methodsFor low-risk breast cancer in the elderly, adjuvant treatment has been adjusted in order to make it more suitable and efficient. Hypofractionated radiation therapy based on accelerated or non-accelerated regimens as well as accelerated and ultra-accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) protocols were reviewed. Withdrawal of radiation (RT) or endocrine therapies (ET) from the adjuvant procedure were also investigated. Based on molecular and APBI classifications, inclusion criteria were discussed.

resultsPhase 3 randomized trials which compared standard vs. accelerated/non-accelerated hypofractionated regimens confirmed that the latter were non-inferior in terms of local control. Similarly, except for intraoperative-based techniques, APBI achieved non-inferior local control rates compared to whole breast irradiation for low-risk breast cancer. In phase 2 prospective trials using ultra APBI, encouraging results were observed regarding oncological outcome and toxicity profile. In phase 3 trials, adjuvant ET without RT significantly increased the rate of local relapse with no impact on overall survival while RT alone proved effective. Elderly patients aged 60 or more with low-risk, luminal A breast cancer were chosen as the target population in a phase 3 randomized trial comparing APBI + 5-year ET vs. uAPBI (16 Gy 1f) alone.

conclusionTo investigate de-escalation adjuvant treatment for elderly breast cancer patients, we have defined a road map for testing more convenient strategies. This EPOPE phase 3 randomized trial is supported by the GEC-ESTRO breast cancer working group.

Indexed as

ABS, American Brachytherapy SocietyAPBI, Accelerated and partial breast irradiationASTRO, American Society of Radiation OncologyBCS, Breast cancer surgeryBCWG, Breast Cancer Working GroupBrachytherapyBreast cancer in the elderlyDCIS, Ductal carcinoma in situDFS, Disease-free survivalEndocrine therapyEPOPE, Endocrine therapy with accelerated Partial breast irradiatiOn or exclusive ultra-accelerated Partial breast irradiation for women aged ≥ 60 years with Early stage breast cancerEQD2, Equivalent Dose in 2Gy fractionsET, Endocrine therapyGEC-ESTRO, Groupe Européen de Curiethérapie/European Society for Therapeutic Radiation and OncologyHDB, High-dose rate BrachytherapyLCIS, Lobular carcinoma in situMAPBI, Molecular and APBI GEC-ESTROMIB, Multicatheter Interstitial BrachytherapyOncogeriatric assessmentQoL, Quality of LifeRadiation therapyRT, RadiotherapyuAPBI, ultra-Accelerated Partial Breast IrradiationWBI, Whole breast irradiation

Identifiers

PMID33997321
PMCPMC8102143
OpenAlexW3155084502

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.