Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34804788›Full record

ArticleJournal of bone oncology2021

Adoption of adjuvant bisphosphonates for early breast cancer into standard clinical practice: Challenges and lessons learnt from comparison of the UK and Australian experience.

I Porter, E Theodoulou, I Holen, C Harper-Wynne, S Baron-Hay, C Wilson, J Brown

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of bone oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 31% 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

I PorterRoyal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, Australia.
E TheodoulouDepartment of Oncology and Metabolism, University of Sheffield, Weston Park Cancer Centre, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
I HolenDepartment of Oncology and Metabolism, University of Sheffield, Weston Park Cancer Centre, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
C Harper-WynneKent Oncology Centre, Maidstone Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust, United Kingdom.
S Baron-HayRoyal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, Australia.
C WilsonDepartment of Oncology and Metabolism, University of Sheffield, Weston Park Cancer Centre, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
J BrownDepartment of Oncology and Metabolism, University of Sheffield, Weston Park Cancer Centre, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
University of Sheffield · GBRoyal North Shore Hospital · AUMaidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust · GBWeston Park Cancer Centre · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

International guidelines recommend adjuvant bisphosphonates (BPs) for post-menopausal women with early breast cancer to reduce recurrence and mortality. However, globally, wide variation exists in their adoption. In the UK, adjuvant BPs were a recommendation in the breast cancer Clinical Reference Group service specification and were included as a priority for implementation by the national oncologists group UK Breast Cancer Group in November 2015, promoting national uptake, guidance and funding arrangements. In 2018, adjuvant BPs were recommended by the UKs National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. In Australia, adjuvant BPs are still 'off-label' and do not receive national reimbursement or endorsement. To date there has been no research into the prescribing habits of these agents in Australia. With the aim to gather data on adjuvant BPs prescribing practices, online surveys were developed and disseminated to breast oncologists in both countries between December 2018 and June 2019. Almost all of the UK oncologists prescribed adjuvant BPs, demonstrating that education, endorsement from professional bodies, presence of national guidelines and funding decisions have been critical to implementation. In contrast, only 48% of the Australian responders prescribed adjuvant BPs, while 83% reported that they would prescribe them if funding was available. Lack of local protocol guidance was also seen as a major barrier. This study was intended to assess the pathway taken for adjuvant BP implementation in the UK and how it might inform changes in Australian practice and also guide other countries with similar issues with the ultimate aim of improving the care of women with early breast cancer globally.

Indexed as

AdjuvantBisphosphonatesBreast cancerPost-menopausalSurvival

Identifiers

PMID34804788
PMCPMC8581365
OpenAlexW3209140603

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.