Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34158167›Full record

SynthesisBreast (Edinburgh, Scotland)2021

Locoregional therapy in de novo metastatic breast cancer: Systemic review and meta-analysis.

Daniel Reinhorn, Raz Mutai, Rinat Yerushalmi, Assaf Moore, Eitan Amir, Hadar Goldvaser

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Axillary lymph node removal inGland surgery · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. HRDrugs in context · 2023
    Review
  15. Locoregional treatment ofFrontiers in oncology · 2023
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Tumour Stem Cells in Breast Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Daniel ReinhornInstitute of Oncology, Rabin Medical Center, Petah- Tikva, Israel.
Raz MutaiInstitute of Oncology, Rabin Medical Center, Petah- Tikva, Israel.
Rinat YerushalmiInstitute of Oncology, Rabin Medical Center, Petah- Tikva, Israel; Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Assaf MooreInstitute of Oncology, Rabin Medical Center, Petah- Tikva, Israel; Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Eitan AmirPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Hadar GoldvaserOncology Institute, Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel; Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel. Electronic address: hadargo@szmc.org.il.
Rabin Medical Center · ILTel Aviv University · ILHebrew University of Jerusalem · ILUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLocoregional therapy (LRT) in de novo metastatic disease is controversial with inconsistent results from randomized control trials (RCTs).

methodsRCTs comparing LRT and systemic therapy to standard therapy alone in de novo metastatic breast cancer were identified. Hazard ratios (HRs) and their associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed and pooled in a meta-analysis using generic inverse variance. Overall survival (OS) and time to locoregional progression data were extracted for the intention to treat (ITT) population. Data on OS for pre-specified subgroups defined by tumor subtype and by site of metastases were also extracted.

resultsAnalyses included 4 trials comprising 970 patients. LRT included standard surgery to the primary breast tumor in all studies, and adjuvant radiation per standard of care was required in 3 studies. Compared to standard treatment, LRT was not associated with improved OS in the ITT population (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.72-1.29, p = 0.81). However, LRT was associated with improved time to locoregional progression (HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.14-0.95, p = 0.04). LRT was not associated with improved OS in any tumor subtypes, including hormone receptor positive (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.65-1.43), triple negative (HR 1.4, 95% CI 0.50-3.91) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive disease (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.68-1.28). Additionally, LRT did not improve OS in bone only disease (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.58-1.62) and in visceral disease (HR = 1.02, 95% CI 0.77-1.35). Our critical appraisal has identified some methodological problems in the design and conduct of the studies included that could affect the meta-analysis result.

conclusionsLRT in de novo metastatic breast cancer is not associated with improved OS. Results are consistent among different breast cancer subgroups. However, this conclusion should be interpreted with caution in view of the limitations identified in meta-analysis.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansProportional Hazards ModelsRadiotherapy, AdjuvantSurvival RateBreast cancerde novo metastaticLocoregional treatmentSurgerySurvival

Identifiers

PMID34158167
PMCPMC8481908
OpenAlexW3174949713

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.