ArticleBreast (Edinburgh, Scotland)2025
Brain imaging screening in metastatic breast cancer: patients' and physicians' perspectives.
Article in Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Risk stratification and relapse pattern in triple-negative breast cancer with pathological complete response after neoadjuvant treatment: the European GAMBIT real-world study.Nature communications · 2026Observational
- A prospective study for brain metastasis imaging screening in patients with advanced HER2-positive or triple-negative breast cancer.ESMO open · 2026Article
- The Canadian Breast Cancer Symposium 2025: Meeting Report.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Article
- Brain imaging screening in metastatic breast cancer: Is it time to rethink clinical guidelines and practice?Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 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
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRoutine brain imaging screening (BIS) in patients with metastatic breast cancer (BC) without neurological symptoms is currently not recommended, as no survival/quality-of-life improvements have been demonstrated. We aimed to examine physicians and patients' attitudes and perceptions toward BIS.
methodsInternational cross-sectional online survey for patients and physicians, distributed from May 2023 to February 2024. Patients with BC diagnosis were deemed eligible for patients' survey completion and BC-treating physicians were invited to fill the physicians' questionnaire.
resultsA total of 529 physicians from 50 countries (80 % European) responded, mostly medical oncologists (70 %) working in academic hospitals (53 %). Most physicians request BIS (65 %), mainly when extracranial progression occurs, especially for HER2+ and triple negative BC (TNBC). Among physicians never performing BIS (35 %), 91 % would in case of proved clinical benefit. A total of 545 patients from 14 European countries completed the questionnaire. Median age was 50 years, 86 % had metastatic BC, 51 % hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/HER2-negative, 30 % HER2-positive (HER2+) and 19 % TNBC. BM were diagnosed in 11.5 % patients with metastatic BC. 85 % patients would like to undergo BIS, especially younger ones (p = 0.02) and with HR-disease (p = 0.03), despite the uncertain clinical benefit. Notably, 91 % of patients would like to receive information regarding BM, while only 13 % of physicians routinely address the issue.
conclusionsThese results underline the willingness of patients to know more about the prospects of BM development, in contrast to the lack of routine discussion of this topic by physicians. Further investigation is warranted to demonstrate the clinical utility of routine BIS.
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.