ArticleCancers2022
Recurrence Score
Article in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Searching for the "Holy Grail" of breast cancer recurrence risk: a narrative review of the hunt for a better biomarker and the promise of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA).Breast cancer research and treatment · 2024Review
- Implementation and Evaluation of a Breast Cancer Disease Model Using Real-World Claims Data in Germany from 2010 to 2020.Cancers · 2024Article
- The Clinical Relevance of the NATALEE Study: Application of the NATALEE Criteria to a Real-World Cohort from Two Large German Breast Cancer Centers.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Association between 21-gene-assay and detection of disseminated tumor cells in patients with early breast cancer: results from the IRMA trial.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2023Article
- Editorial for the Special Issue "Breast Cancer-Therapeutic Challenges, Research Strategies and Novel Diagnostics".Cancers · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), HER2-negative (HER2-) early breast cancer (eBC) with a high risk of relapse often undergo adjuvant chemotherapy. However, only a few patients will gain benefit from chemotherapy. Since classical tumor characteristics (grade, tumor size, lymph node involvement, and Ki67) are of limited value to predict chemotherapy efficacy, multigene expression assays such as the Oncotype DX MATERIALS AND
methodsThe RS result was assessed in patients with HR+/HER2- unilateral eBC with 0-3 pathologic lymph nodes who underwent primary surgical treatment at the Department for Women's Health of Tuebingen University, Germany. Therapy recommendations without knowledge of the RS result were compared to therapy recommendations with awareness of the RS result.
resultsIn total, 245 patients underwent RS assessment. Without knowledge of the RS result, 92/245 patients (37.6%) would have been advised to receive chemotherapy. After RS assessment, 56/245 patients (22.9%) were advised to undergo chemotherapy. Chemotherapy was waived in 47/92 patients (51.1%) that were initially recommended to receive it. Chemotherapy was added in 11/153 patients (7.2%) that were recommended to not receive it initially. SUMMARY: Using the RS result to guide adjuvant treatment decisions in HR+/HER2- breast cancer led to a substantial reduction of chemotherapy. In view of the results achieved in prospective studies, the RS result is among other risk-factors suitable for the individualization of adjuvant systemic therapy.
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.