ArticleActa oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden)2025
Metastatic triple-negative breast cancer - current treatment strategies in the Nordics: a modified Delphi study.
Article in Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden), 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeThis study aimed to assess current treatment strategies for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) and the perceptions of clinical experts in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, and Iceland, comparing them to international guidelines to provide insights into how these therapies are implemented and adapted to national Nordic guidelines.
methodsA three-round modified Delphi method was followed with consensus defined as 70% agreement. A steering committee selected 20 experienced oncologists as panellists and developed the questionnaires. Questions included items related to treatment preferences in different treatment lines with different clinical scenarios in mTNBC patients.
resultsIn the first round, eight out of 33 questions on clinical treatment reached consensus with 14 out of 27 in the second round reaching consensus. In round three, eight out of eight questions reached consensus. The preferred treatment for mTNBC patients with PD-L1 positive was checkpoint inhibitors (CPI) in combination with chemotherapy. For patients with germline BRCA mutation and PD-L1 negative disease, PARP-inhibitors were preferred as 1L and sacituzumab govitecan (SG) in both 2L and later lines. Disagreement was observed for chemotherapy in later lines where evidence is sparse or lacking.
interpretationThe high level of consensus for new treatment strategies, such as CPI and PARP-inhibitors in 1L and SG in 2L or later lines, in comparison with the limited consensus for older treatments, such as chemotherapy, may reflect the growing academic evidence for different treatment strategies. Understanding the treatment patterns across different countries contributes to gaining consensus on the upcoming therapeutic advances.
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.