Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36107428›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2022

Comparison of Management and Outcomes in ERBB2-Low vs ERBB2-Zero Metastatic Breast Cancer in France.

Ombline de Calbiac, Amélie Lusque, Audrey Mailliez, Thomas Bachelot, Lionel Uwer, Marie-Ange Mouret-Reynier, George Emile, Christelle Jouannaud, Anthony Gonçalves, Anne Patsouris and 10 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03275311 (Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economic), which is not on this map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT03275311 recruitingnot on this map

Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economic (ESME) Research Program / Academic Real World Database: Evolution of the Therapeutic Care in Metastatic Breast Cancer Across the French Comprehensive Cancer Centers From 2008

TypeobservationalSponsorUNICANCERRan2014 to 2027Enrolled42,000ConditionsMetastatic Breast Cancer
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. How I treat HER2-low advanced breast cancer.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2023
    Review
  17. HER2-Low Breast Cancer: Current Landscape and Future Prospects.Breast cancer (Dove Medical Press) · 2023
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

20 authors.

Ombline de CalbiacDepartment of Medical Oncology, Institut de Cancérologie de l'Ouest Nantes and Angers, Saint-Herblain, France.
Amélie LusqueDepartment of Biostatistics, Institut Claudius Regaud-IUCT Oncopole, Toulouse, France.
Audrey MailliezDepartment of Medical Oncology, Centre Oscar Lambret, Lille, France.
Thomas BachelotDepartment of Medical Oncology, Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France.
Lionel UwerDepartment of Medical Oncology, Institut de Cancérologie de Lorraine, Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France.
Marie-Ange Mouret-ReynierDepartment of Medical Oncology, Centre Jean Perrin, Clermont Ferrand, France.
George EmileDepartment of Medical Oncology, Centre François Baclesse, Caen, France.
Christelle JouannaudDepartment of Medical Oncology, Institut de Cancérologie Jean-Godinot, Reims, France.
Anthony GonçalvesDepartment of Medical Oncology, Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseille, France.
Anne PatsourisDepartment of Medical Oncology, Institut de Cancérologie de l'Ouest Nantes and Angers, Angers, France.
Véronique DiérasDepartment of Medical Oncology, Centre Eugène Marquis, Rennes, France.
Marianne LeheurteurDepartment of Medical Oncology, Centre Henri Becquerel, Rouen, France.
Thierry PetitDepartment of Medical Oncology, Centre Paul Strauss, Strasbourg, France.
Paul CottuDepartment of Medical Oncology, Institut Curie, Paris and Saint-Cloud, France.
Jean-Marc FerreroDepartment of Medical Oncology, Centre Antoine Lacassagne, Nice, France.
Véronique D'HondtDepartment of Medical Oncology, Institut du Cancer de Montpellier, Montpellier, France.
Isabelle DesmoulinsDepartment of Medical Oncology, Centre Georges-François Leclerc, Dijon, France.
Joana Mourato-RibeiroDepartment of Cancer Medicine, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France.
Anne-Laure MartinHealth Data and Partnerships Department, Unicancer, Paris, France.
Jean-Sébastien FrenelDepartment of Medical Oncology, Institut de Cancérologie de l'Ouest Nantes and Angers, Saint-Herblain, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: ERBB2-low (ie, ERBB2 immunohistochemistry score of 1+ or 2+ in the absence of ERBB2 gene amplification) breast cancer (BC) is a new entity, with emerging dedicated treatments. Little is known about its prognosis and response to conventional therapy compared with ERBB2-zero breast tumors (ie, those with an immunohistochemistry score of 0). Objective: To compare the outcomes for patients with ERBB2-low metastatic BC (MBC) with those of patients with ERBB2-zero MBC. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was conducted from the Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics MBC platform and included patients with MBC treated between 2008 and 2016 in 18 French comprehensive cancer centers. The data analysis was conducted from July 16, 2020, to April 1, 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was overall survival (OS), and the secondary outcome was progression-free survival under first-line treatments (PFS1). Results: The median (range) age was 60.0 (22.0-103.0) years. Among 15 054 patients with MBC, 4671 (31%) had ERBB2-low MBC and 10 383 (69%) had ERBB2-zero MBC. The proportion of ERBB2-low cancers was higher among patients with hormone receptor-positive MBC than those with hormone receptor-negative disease (4083 patients [33.0%] vs 588 patients [21.0%]). With a median follow-up of 49.5 months (95% CI, 48.6-50.4 months), the median OS of the ERBB2-low group was 38.0 months (95% CI, 36.4-40.5 months) compared with 33.9 months (95% CI, 32.9-34.9 months) for the ERBB2-zero group (P < .001). After adjustment for age, visceral metastases, number of metastatic sites, de novo disease, period of care, and hormone receptor status, patients with ERBB2-low MBC had slightly better OS compared with patients with ERBB2-zero MBC (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91-0.99; P = .02). In contrast, PFS1 did not differ by ERBB2 status (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.95-1.02; P = .45). No significant differences in OS and PFS1 were observed in multivariate analyses by hormone receptor status and types of frontline treatment. Conclusions and Relevance: In this large cohort study, patients with ERBB2-low MBC had a slightly better OS than those with completely ERBB2-zero tumors, but identical PFS1, which could help guide treatment selection.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCohort StudiesErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesFemaleHormonesHumansMiddle AgedPrognosisRetrospective StudiesYoung AdultERBB2 protein, humanErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesHormones

Identifiers

PMID36107428
PMCPMC9478776

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.