Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38780115›Full record

ReviewThe oncologist2024

High-value breast cancer care within resource limitations.

Didier Verhoeven, Sabine Siesling, Claudia Allemani, Pankaj Gupta Roy, Luzia Travado, Nirmala Bhoo-Pathy, Clifford Rhayns, Hans Junkermann, Seigo Nakamura, Nwamaka Lasebikan and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The oncologist, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

11 authors.

Didier VerhoevenDepartment of Medical Oncology, University of Antwerp, AZ KLINA, Brasschaat, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-7748-0837
Sabine SieslingDepartment of Health Technology and Services Research, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Claudia AllemaniCancer Survival Group, Department of Non-Communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4871-3766
Pankaj Gupta RoyNuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Luzia TravadoChampalimaud Clinical and Research Centre, Champalimaud Foundation, Lisbon, Portugal.
Nirmala Bhoo-PathyDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Clifford RhaynsJust4Cancer, Las Vegas, United States.
Hans JunkermannMammographie-Screening Neckar-Alb, Tübingen, Germany.
Seigo NakamuraDivision of Breast Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Showa University, Tokyo, Japan.
Nwamaka LasebikanDepartment of Radiation and Clinical Oncology, University of Nigeria Teaching Hospital, Enugu, Nigeria.
Forrest Lee TuckerVirginia Biomedical Laboratories, Wirtz, VA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Breast cancer care is a costly global health issue where effective management depends on early detection and treatment. A breast cancer diagnosis can result in financial catastrophe especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). Large inequities in breast cancer care are observed and represent a global challenge to caregivers and patients. Strategies to improve early diagnosis include awareness and clinical breast examination in LMIC, and screening in high-income countries (HIC). The use of clinical guidelines for the management of breast cancer is needed. Adapted guidelines from HIC can address disparities in populations with limited resources. Locally developed strategies still provide effective guidance in improving survival. Integrated practice units (IPU) with timely multidisciplinary breast care conferences and patient navigators are required to achieve high-value, personalized breast cancer management in HIC as well as LMIC. Breast cancer patient care should include a quality of life evaluation using ideally patient-reported outcomes (PROM) and experience measurements (PREM). Evaluation of breast cancer outcomes must include the financial cost of delivered care. The resulting value perspective should guide resource allocation and program priorities. The value of care must be improved by translating the findings of social and economic research into practice and resolving systemic inequity in clinical breast cancer research. Cancer survivorship programs must be put in place everywhere. The treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer must require more attention in the future, especially in LMIC.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsFemaleHealth ResourcesHumansQuality of Lifebreast cancercommunity outreachearly diagnosiseconomicsglobal healthhealth outcomesvalue quotient

Identifiers

PMID38780115
PMCPMC11224985

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.