ArticleBreast cancer (Tokyo, Japan)2022
Outcome analysis of primary breast cancer patients who declined adjuvant chemotherapy-results from the prospective multi-center BRENDA II study.
Article in Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study examined 5-year overall, recurrence and distant metastasis-free survival (OS, RFS, MFS) of high- and intermediate-risk breast cancer (BC) patients who declined guideline-recommended adjuvant chemotherapy (CHT).
methodsIn the prospective multicenter cohort study BRENDA II, patients with primary BC were sampled over a period of four years (2009-2012). A multi-professional team (tumorboard) discussed recommendation for adjuvant CHT according to the German guideline. Potential differences in 5 year survival were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression. The hazard ratios (HR) were adjusted for age, Charlson Comorbidity Score, American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) physical status classification, and endocrine therapy.
resultsA total of 759 patients were enrolled of which 688 could receive CHT according to the guidelines (n = 219 had a clear indication, in n = 304 it was possible). For 360 patients, the tumorboard advised to perform CHT, for 304 it advised against and in 24 cases, no decision was documented. Of those with a positive suggestion, 83% received CHT. Until 5 years after diagnosis, 57 patients were deceased, 41 had at least one distant metastasis and 29 a recurrence. There was no evidence for differences in OS and MFS in patients who declined CHT despite tumorboard recommendation (HR 3.5, 95% CI 0.8-15.1 for OS, HR 1.9, 95% 0.6-6.6 for MFS). Patients who received CHT had significantly better 5-year RFS compared to those who declined (HR 0.3, 95% CI 0.1-0.9, p = 0.03). There was no evidence for different survival in those who had no CHT because of comorbidity and those who declined actively, neither for OS, MFS nor RFS.
conclusionThe prospective BRENDA II study demonstrates benefit in RFS by guideline adherence in adjuvant breast cancer treatment, indicating prospectively the value of internationally validated guidelines in breast cancer care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.