Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39531598›Full record

ArticleJCO oncology practice2025

Clinical Management of Ovarian Function Suppression in Premenopausal Women With Breast Cancer: A Survey of Members of ASCO.

Catherine M Kelly, Kathleen E Bennett, Caitriona Cahir, Andrea Eisen, Lajos Pusztai

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JCO oncology practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Efficacy and safety of leuprorelin (BoennuokangFrontiers in pharmacology · 2025
    Article
  10. 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

5 authors.

Catherine M KellyDepartment of Medical Oncology, Mater Private Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0001-8355-6714
Kathleen E BennettSchool of Population Health, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0002-2861-7665
Caitriona CahirSchool of Population Health, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin, Ireland.
Andrea EisenOdette Cancer Center, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada.
Lajos PusztaiCenter for Breast Cancer, Smilow Cancer Hospital, Yale, New Haven, CT.ORCID 0000-0001-9632-6686

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeOvarian function suppression (OFS) with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRHas) is a standard of care for premenopausal patients with high-risk stage II/III hormone receptor-positive breast cancer (BC). Practical guidance on the optimal choice of GnRHa, timing, schedule, and monitoring is limited. Our aim was to determine how oncologists use OFS in routine care.

methodsWe designed a questionnaire to determine the choice of GnRHa, schedule, duration, initiation, use of bone modifiers, and monitoring of estradiol (E2). The questionnaire was sent to oncologists treating BC, in practice for >1 year and participating in the ASCO Research Survey Pool (RSP). It was also forwarded by investigators to oncologists meeting these criteria. The survey was open between November 14, 2023, and January 5, 2024.

resultsOf 996 oncologists participating in the ASCO RSP, 178 (18%) completed the survey. An additional 56 oncologists contacted by investigators responded. Respondents were from the United States (57%), Asia (15%), and Europe (14%). Goserelin (54%) and leuprolide (39%) were the most frequently used GnRHas and were administered once every month by 46%. Approaches to starting GnRHas were varied. Most continued them for the duration of aromatase inhibitor therapy (57%). Estradiol monitoring was performed regularly, sometimes, or never by 43%, 27%, and 27%, respectively. The E2 assays used were standard (65%), ultrasensitive (16%), and unknown (14%). Interpreting E2 assay results were considered difficult by 55%; however, 62% of oncologists changed treatment on the basis of them. A total of 92% of respondents would like ASCO guidance on the practical use of OFS.

conclusionConsiderable practice variation exists for similar clinical scenarios in OFS administration. Respondents would welcome ASCO guidance on all aspects of OFS.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic Agents, HormonalBreast NeoplasmsGonadotropin-Releasing HormoneOvaryAdultFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPremenopauseSurveys and QuestionnairesAntineoplastic Agents, HormonalGonadotropin-Releasing Hormone

Identifiers

PMID39531598
PMCPMC12165554

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.