ArticleThoracic cancer2023
Good practice: The experiences with the utilization of residual cancer burden-A single institution study.
Article in Thoracic cancer, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Good practice: The experiences with the utilization of residual cancer burden-A single institution study.Thoracic 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe use of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) has been showing an incraesing tendency in the treatment of locally advanced breast cancer. The evaluation of residual cancer could be performed by Residual Cancer Burden (RCB) calculator. The prognostic system takes the two largest diameters of the tumor, the cellularity, the amount of in situ carcinoma, the number of metastatic lymph nodes, and the size of the largest metastatic deposit into account. The aim of our study was to examine the reproducibility of RCB in NAT treated patients.
methodsPatients who were treated with NAT and had resection specimens between 2018 and 2021 were selected. Histological examination was performed by five pathologists. After assessment of the examined variables, RCB points and RCB classes were defined. For statistical analysis, interclass correlation was used (SPSS Statistics V.22.0 software).
resultsAltogether 100 patients were included in our retrospective, cohort study (average age: 57 years). In two-thirds of the cases, third generation chemotherapy was used, and mastectomy was performed. Significant concordance was found in the two largest diameters of the tumor (coefficients, 0.984 and 0.973), the cellularity (coefficient, 0.970), and the largest metastatic deposit (coefficient, 0.998). Although the amount of in situ carcinoma proved to be the least reproducible factor, it resulted in almost 90% of agreement (coefficient, 0.873). Regarding RCB points and classes, similar results were observed (coefficients, 0.989 and 0.960).
conclusionsSignificant agreement was observed between examiners based on almost all RCB parameters, points, and classes, reflecting the optimal reproducibility of RCB. Therefore, we recommend the use of the calculator in routine histopathological reports in NAT cases.
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.