ArticleBMC cancer2022
Management of early-stage triple-negative breast cancer: recommendations of a panel of experts from the Brazilian Society of Mastology.
Article in BMC cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Surgery-first versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy in stage I (cT1c) triple-negative breast cancer: A critical reappraisal.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2026Review
- Insights on postneoadjuvant treatment among patients with triple-negative breast cancer and residual disease after neoadjuvant therapy: can expert consensus help to interpret the current evidence?British journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Does Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Clinical T1-T2 N0 Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Increase the Extent of Axillary Surgery?Annals of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- Breast and axillary marking in the neoadjuvant setting: survey results from experts of the Brazilian society of mastology.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Kappa statistic considerations in evaluating inter-rater reliability between two raters: which, when and context matters.BMC cancer · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
30 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTriple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a heterogenous subtype involving different patterns of behavior and clinical course, demanding a complex, individualized sequence of treatment. The knowledge and attitudes of the affiliated members of the Brazilian Society of Mastology regarding TNBC were evaluated and a consensus regarding management and treatment was reached.
methodsAffiliates completed a survey involving 44 objective questions. In addition, a specialist meeting was held with 27 experts and 3 ad hoc consultants. The panelists completed the survey before and after brainstorming. Answers achieving 70% of agreement were considered consensual. The chi-square test was used to compare answers between panelists and affiliates and the Kappa coefficient to calculate agreement.
resultsConsensus among the panelists increased from 26 (59.1%) to 32 questions (72.7%) following brainstorming (p = 0.17), including 7/10 questions on systemic treatment. Among the affiliates, consensus was achieved for 24 questions (54.5%), resulting in moderate agreement (κ = 0.445). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy should be indicated for almost all cases (except cT1a-b N0) and should include platinum agents. When indicated, immunotherapy is part of the standard of care. The panel reaffirmed the concept of no ink on tumor as indicative of adequate margins and the possibility of sentinel lymph node biopsy for cN1 patients who become cN0 following neoadjuvant therapy. Controversies remain on combining immunotherapy with capecitabine/olaparib in pertinent cases.
conclusionExpert consensus was achieved for > 70% of the questions, with moderate agreement between panelists and affiliates. Educational interventions on systemic breast cancer treatment affected decision-making in 60% of the questions.
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.