Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37947974›Full record

ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2024

Minimally Invasive Breast Biopsy After Neoadjuvant Systemic Treatment to Identify Breast Cancer Patients with Residual Disease for Extended Neoadjuvant Treatment: A New Concept.

André Pfob, Lie Cai, Andreas Schneeweiss, Geraldine Rauch, Bettina Thomas, Benedikt Schaefgen, Sherko Kuemmel, Toralf Reimer, Markus Hahn, Marc Thill and 20 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02948764 (RESPONDER Trial - Diagnosis of Pathological Complete Response by Vacuum-assisted Biopsy After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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.

NCT02948764 nacompletednot on this map

RESPONDER Trial - Diagnosis of Pathological Complete Response by Vacuum-assisted Biopsy After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer

TypeinterventionalSponsorHeidelberg UniversityRan2017 to 2019Enrolled452ConditionsBreast NeoplasmsArmsVacuum-Assisted Biopsy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

30 authors at 20 institutions in 2 countries.

André Pfob *Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany. Andre.pfob@med.uni-heidelberg.de.
Lie Cai *Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.
Andreas SchneeweissNational Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital and German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany.
Geraldine RauchInstitute of Biometry and Clinical Epidemiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Bettina ThomasCoordination Centre for Clinical Trials (KKS), University Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Benedikt SchaefgenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.
Sherko KuemmelBreast Unit, Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Essen, Germany.
Toralf ReimerDepartment of Gynecology/Breast Unit, University Hospital Rostock, Rostock, Germany.
Markus HahnDepartment of Gynecology/Breast Unit, University Hospital Tuebingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Marc ThillDepartment of Gynecology and Gynecological Oncology/Breast Unit, Agaplesion Markus Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany.
Jens-Uwe BlohmerDepartment of Gynecology with Breast Center, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
John HackmannDepartment of Gynecology/Breast Unit, Marienhospital, Witten, Germany.
Wolfram MalterDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Medical Faculty, Breast Cancer Center, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Inga BekesDepartment of Gynecology/Breast Unit, University Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
Kay FriedrichsDepartment of Gynecology/Breast Unit, Jerusalem Hospital Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Sebastian WojcinskiDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Breast Cancer Center, Klinikum Bielefeld Mitte GmbH, Bielefeld, Germany.
Sylvie JoosRadiologische Allianz Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Stefan PaepkeFrauenklinik, Interdisziplinäres Brustzentrum des Klinikums rechts der Isar der Technischen Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Tom DegenhardtDepartment of Gynecology/Breast Unit, University Hospital Munich, Munich, Germany.
Joachim RomDepartment of Gynecology/Breast Unit, Klinikum Frankfurt-Höchst, Frankfurt, Germany.
Achim RodyDepartment of Gynecology/Breast Unit, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Lübeck, Germany.
Marion van MackelenberghDepartment of Gynecology/Breast Unit, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany.
Maggie Banys-PaluchowskiDepartment of Gynecology/Breast Unit, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Lübeck, Germany.
Regina GroßeDepartment of Gynecology/Breast Unit, University Hospital Halle, Halle, Germany.
Mattea ReinischBreast Unit, Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Essen, Germany.
Maria Margarete KarstenDepartment of Gynecology with Breast Center, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Chris Sidey-GibbonsMD Anderson Center for INSPiRED Cancer Care (Integrated Systems for Patient-Reported Data), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Markus WallwienerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.
Michael GolattaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.
Joerg HeilDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.
Heidelberg University · DEUniversity Hospital Heidelberg · DEKliniken Essen-Mitte · DEUniversity Hospital Schleswig-Holstein · DEAgaplesion Markus Hospital · DECharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEFreie Universität Berlin · DEGerman Cancer Research Center · DEHumboldt-Universität zu Berlin · DEKlinikum Bielefeld · DEKlinikum Frankfurt Höchst · DEKlinikum rechts der Isar · DEKrankenhaus Jerusalem · DEMarien Hospital Witten · DEMünchen Klinik · DEThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USUniversity Hospital in Halle · DEUniversity Hospital Ulm · DEUniversity of Cologne · DEUniversity of Lübeck · DE

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft German Research GroupDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft GZ:HE 6824/5-1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBreast cancer patients with residual disease after neoadjuvant systemic treatment (NAST) have a worse prognosis compared with those achieving a pathologic complete response (pCR). Earlier identification of these patients might allow timely, extended neoadjuvant treatment strategies. We explored the feasibility of a vacuum-assisted biopsy (VAB) after NAST to identify patients with residual disease (ypT+ or ypN+) prior to surgery.

methodsWe used data from a multicenter trial, collected at 21 study sites (NCT02948764). The trial included women with cT1-3, cN0/+ breast cancer undergoing routine post-neoadjuvant imaging (ultrasound, MRI, mammography) and VAB prior to surgery. We compared the findings of VAB and routine imaging with the histopathologic evaluation of the surgical specimen.

resultsOf 398 patients, 34 patients with missing ypN status and 127 patients with luminal tumors were excluded. Among the remaining 237 patients, tumor cells in the VAB indicated a surgical non-pCR in all patients (73/73, positive predictive value [PPV] 100%), whereas PPV of routine imaging after NAST was 56.0% (75/134). Sensitivity of the VAB was 72.3% (73/101), and 74.3% for sensitivity of imaging (75/101).

conclusionResidual cancer found in a VAB specimen after NAST always corresponds to non-pCR. Residual cancer assumed on routine imaging after NAST corresponds to actual residual cancer in about half of patients. Response assessment by VAB is not safe for the exclusion of residual cancer. Response assessment by biopsies after NAST may allow studying the new concept of extended neoadjuvant treatment for patients with residual disease in future trials.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsBreastFemaleHumansImage-Guided BiopsyNeoadjuvant TherapyNeoplasm, ResidualExtended neoadjuvant treatmentNeoadjuvant systemic treatmentPathologic complete responseResidual diseaseVacuum-assisted biopsy

Identifiers

PMID37947974
PMCPMC10761434
OpenAlexW4388574658

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.