ReviewAnnals of surgical oncology2022
Primary-Site Local Therapy for Patients with De Novo Metastatic Breast Cancer: An Educational Review.
Review in Annals of surgical oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- ASO Author Reflections on "Variation in Surgical Management of Stage IV Breast Cancer: Local/Institutional and Regional Geographic Considerations."Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Surgeon Attitudes on the Management of de novo Oligometastatic Breast Cancer.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- HRDrugs in context · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUntil 2001, the paradigm guiding the management of women with de novo metastatic breast cancer (dnMBC) stipulated that primary-site locoregional therapy (PSLT) did not alter the course of metastatic disease and was necessary only for palliation of symptoms. Since 2002, retrospective data have begun questioning this paradigm. However, selection biases driving an observed survival advantage associated with PSLT in dnMBC were quickly recognized and led to several randomized clinical trials (RCTs) addressing this question. METHODS AND
resultsFour published RCTs have since tested the value of PSLT added to systemic therapy (ST) or not, with overall survival (OS) as the primary end point. The results of three published trials show no OS benefit for the addition of PSLT: Indian Tata Memorial, U.S./Canada E2108, and Austrian POSYTIVE (although POSYTIVE did not reach full accrual). The fourth RCT (Turkey, MF07-01) shows an OS benefit for PSLT at 5 years (42 % vs 24 % in the ST arm; hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.49-0.88). However, the 5-year survival in the PSLT arm of MF07-01 is similar to that in both arms of E2108, suggesting that the worse survival in the ST arm of MF07-01 is a result of biologically worse disease (from imbalanced randomization). Locoregional control was improved by PSLT in all trials, but without improvement in quality of life.
conclusionsThe current evidence fails to refute the 20th century paradigm guiding management of de novo metastatic breast cancer. Discussion continues regarding the survival value of PSLT for patients with bone-only disease or oligometastases, but unbiased evidence is lacking.
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.