Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34007260›Full record

ReviewBreast care (Basel, Switzerland)2021

Challenges and Opportunities for Real-World Evidence in Metastatic Luminal Breast Cancer.

Diana Lüftner, Andreas D Hartkopf, Michael P Lux, Friedrich Overkamp, Hans Tesch, Adriana Titzmann, Patrik Pöschke, Markus Wallwiener, Volkmar Müller, Matthias W Beckmann and 9 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Breast care (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.

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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. 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

19 authors.

Diana LüftnerDepartment of Hematology, Oncology and Tumor Immunology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Andreas D HartkopfDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Michael P LuxDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Frauenklinik St. Louise Paderborn, St. Josefs-Krankenhaus, Salzkotten, Germany.
Friedrich OverkampOncoConsult Overkamp GmbH, Berlin, Germany.
Hans TeschOncology Practice at Bethanien Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany.
Adriana TitzmannDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Erlangen University Hospital, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Patrik PöschkeDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Erlangen University Hospital, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Markus WallwienerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Volkmar MüllerDepartment of Gynecology, Hamburg-Eppendorf University Medical Center, Hamburg, Germany.
Matthias W BeckmannDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Erlangen University Hospital, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Erik BellevilleClinSol GmbH and Co. KG, Würzburg, Germany.
Wolfgang JanniDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Ulm University Hospital, Ulm, Germany.
Tanja N FehmDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Düsseldorf University Hospital, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Hans-Christian KolbergDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Marienhospital Bottrop, Bottrop, Germany.
Johannes EttlDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Diethelm WallwienerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Andreas SchneeweissNational Center for Tumor Diseases and Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Sara Y BruckerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Peter A FaschingDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Erlangen University Hospital, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe therapeutic armamentarium for patients with metastatic breast cancer is becoming more and more specific. Recommendations from clinical trials are not available for all treatment situations and patient subgroups, and it is therefore important to collect real-world data. SUMMARY: To develop recommendations for up-to-date treatments and participation in clinical trials for patients with metastatic breast cancer, the Prospective Academic Translational Research PRAEGNANT Network was established to optimize the quality of oncological care in the advanced therapeutic setting. The main aim of PRAEGNANT is to systematically record medical care for patients with metastatic breast cancer in the real-life setting, including the outcome and side effects of different treatment strategies, to monitor quality-of-life changes during therapy, to identify patients eligible for participation in clinical studies, and to allow targeted therapies based on the molecular structures of breast carcinomas. KEY MESSAGES: This article describes the PRAEGNANT network and sheds light on the question of whether the various end points from clinical trials can be transferred to the real-world treatment situation.

Indexed as

Breast cancerLuminalMetastasisPRAEGNANTReal-world evidence

Identifiers

PMID34007260
PMCPMC8114055

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.