Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34065332›Full record

ArticleCancers2021

Patterns of Recurrence after Neoadjuvant Therapy in Early Breast Cancer, according to the Residual Cancer Burden Index and Reductions in Neoadjuvant Treatment Intensity.

Christoph Suppan, Florian Posch, Hannah Deborah Mueller, Nina Mischitz, Daniel Steiner, Eva Valentina Klocker, Lisa Setaffy, Ute Bargfrieder, Robert Hammer, Hubert Hauser and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Persistence of ctDNA in Patients with Breast Cancer During Neoadjuvant Treatment Is a Significant Predictor of Poor Tumor Response.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

14 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Christoph SuppanDivision of Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Medical University of Graz, 8036 Graz, Austria.
Florian PoschDivision of Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Medical University of Graz, 8036 Graz, Austria.
Hannah Deborah MuellerDivision of Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Medical University of Graz, 8036 Graz, Austria.
Nina MischitzDivision of Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Medical University of Graz, 8036 Graz, Austria.
Daniel SteinerDivision of Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Medical University of Graz, 8036 Graz, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-4170-603X
Eva Valentina KlockerDivision of Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Medical University of Graz, 8036 Graz, Austria.
Lisa SetaffyDepartment of Pathology, Hospital Graz South-West, 8020 Graz, Austria.
Ute BargfriederDepartment of Pathology, Hospital Graz South-West, 8020 Graz, Austria.
Robert HammerDepartment of Surgery, Hospital Graz South-West, 8020 Graz, Austria.
Hubert HauserDepartment of Surgery, Hospital Graz South-West, 8020 Graz, Austria.
Philipp J JostDivision of Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Medical University of Graz, 8036 Graz, Austria.
Nadia DandachiDivision of Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Medical University of Graz, 8036 Graz, Austria.ORCID 0000-0001-9093-0743
Sigurd LaxDepartment of Pathology, Hospital Graz South-West, 8020 Graz, Austria.
Marija BalicDivision of Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Medical University of Graz, 8036 Graz, Austria.ORCID 0000-0001-9482-9191
Medical University of Graz · ATGraz University Hospital · ATJohannes Kepler University of Linz · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe prognostic performance of the residual cancer burden (RCB) score is a promising tool for breast cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy. We independently evaluated the prognostic value of RCB scores in an extended validation cohort. Additionally, we analyzed the association between chemotherapy dose reduction and RCB scores.

methodsIn this extended validation study, 367 breast cancer patients with available RCB scores were followed up for recurrence-free survival (RFS), distant disease-free survival (DDFS), and overall survival (OS). We also computed standardized cumulative doses of anthracyclines and taxanes (A/Ts) to investigate a potential interaction between neoadjuvant chemotherapy dose reduction and RCB scores.

resultsHigher RCB scores were consistently associated with adverse clinical outcomes across different molecular subtypes (HR for RFS = 1.60, 95% CI 1.33-1.93,

conclusionOur results confirm RCB score as a prognostic marker for RFS, DDFS, and OS independent of the molecular subtype. Importantly, we show that lower doses of cumulative neoadjuvant A/T were associated with higher RCB scores in patients who required a dose reduction.

Indexed as

early breast cancerneoadjuvant systemic therapyRCB

Identifiers

PMID34065332
PMCPMC8161089
OpenAlexW3160280330

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.