ArticleInternational journal of cancer2025
Patient-reported outcome thresholds and their associations with survival, adverse events, and quality of life in a pooled analysis of breast cancer trials.
Article in International journal of cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient-reported outcome thresholds and their associations with survival, adverse events, and quality of life in a pooled analysis of breast cancer trials.International journal of cancer · 2025Article
- Symptom Reporting Behaviors, Symptom Burden, and Quality of Life in Patients with Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer Undergoing Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Researchers at the EORTC recently recommended clinical thresholds for the QLQ-C30 to facilitate actionable insights in clinical practice. We evaluate the distribution of these thresholds and associations with outcomes in breast cancer. Data were pooled from two early-stage and six advanced-stage breast cancer trials. EORTC thresholds were applied to available QLQ-C30 data to identify clinically important PRO domains. Associations between the number of clinically important PRO domains at baseline with overall survival (OS), invasive-disease-free survival (IDFS), progression-free survival (PFS), grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs), and serious AEs were evaluated using Cox-regression. Data from 8544 breast cancer patients, of whom 2428 (41%) of the 5893 early-stage and 1486 (56%) of the 2651 advanced-stage patients reported ≥3 clinically important PRO domains. In the early-stage, each additional clinically important PRO domain was associated with worsened grade ≥3 AEs (HR, 1.03 [95%CI, 1.01-1.04], p = 0.001) and serious AEs (1.05 [1.03-1.07], p < 0.001). In the advanced-stage, each additional clinically important PRO domain was associated with worsened OS (1.05 [1.03-1.07], p < 0.001), PFS (1.03 [1.01-1.04], p = 0.002), grade ≥3 AEs (1.04 [1.02-1.06], p < 0.001), and serious AEs (1.07 [1.04-1.11], p < 0.001). A substantial proportion of breast cancer patients report clinically important PRO domains at baseline, with increasing numbers associated with worsening AEs, survival, and quality-of-life.
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.