ArticleBreast cancer research : BCR2025
Patterns of adjuvant bone modifying agent use in patients with early-stage breast cancer in the United States.
Article in Breast cancer research : BCR, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeBased on improved survival, the 2017 ASCO and Cancer Care Ontario clinical guidelines (ACGD) recommended consideration of adjuvant bisphosphonates for postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer (EBC). However, small survey-based studies suggest inconsistent prescribing. This study evaluated receipt of adjuvant bone modifying agents (BMAs) in the United States before and after publication of the 2017 ACGD.
methodsThis nationwide retrospective cohort study used a deidentified electronic health record-derived database to identify patients diagnosed with stage I-III EBC treated at health care practices from 2012 to 2019. We defined adjuvant BMA (bisphosphonates or denosumab) use as first dose received within 24 months of EBC diagnosis. We used Chi-squared and multivariable logistic regression analyses to compare the proportion of patients receiving adjuvant BMAs pre- and post-ACGD and identify factors associated with receipt of any BMA as well as bisphosphonates alone.
resultsOur cohort included 11,470 patients. Most patients were 50 years of age or older (82%), and had stage I (57%), node-negative (70%) and estrogen receptor (ER)-positive (76%) breast cancer. Patients diagnosed post-ACGD (2017-19) were more likely to receive adjuvant BMAs (9%) than patients diagnosed in earlier years (7.4%; odds ratio [OR] 1.23; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08-1.42; p = 0.002). Post-menopausal status, age ≥ 50, receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy and endocrine therapy, and coexisting bone loss diagnoses were significantly associated with increased receipt of adjuvant BMAs. Among BMA recipients, 65.8% received denosumab only, 32.6% received bisphosphonates only, and 1.4% received both.
conclusionsEven after release of the ACGD guidelines, adjuvant BMA prescribing was low, and the majority of patients who received BMA did not receive bisphosphonates.
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.