ArticleBMC cancer2026
Nonadherence to changing guidelines in early breast cancer over two decades.
Article in BMC cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
purposeThe incidence of breast cancer has increased, and many more cases are being detected with favorable tumor characteristics and in older age. The guidelines for treating early breast cancer have evolved as new treatments have become available. Our aim was to study the extent to which the guidelines reflect the real-world setting and whether guideline non-adherence is more frequent in some patient groups.
methodsData from 803 women aged 40–84 years diagnosed with early breast cancer between 1992 and 2011 were retrieved from the clinical patient files and the Finnish Cancer Registry. To study adherence to existing national guidelines, undertreatment and overtreatment with respect to the guidelines were considered non-adherence, and adherence status was analyzed using multivariable regression models.
resultsDuring the study period, the proportion of patients with guideline-based indications for systemic adjuvant treatment increased from 43.8% to 98.9%, while adherence to the guidelines decreased from 82.2% to 70.1%. Undertreatment was more frequent in the later years of the study (odds ratio [OR] 2.77; confidence interval [CI] 95% 1.67–4.59) compared to the beginning of the study, and more frequent among patients 70 years or older (OR 1.86; CI 95% 1.22–2.84) compared to patients 50–69 years of age. Undertreatment was more common in node-negative (T2-4N0) cases than in node-positive cases (OR 2.14; CI 95% 1.16–3.96).
conclusionAs treatment indications expand, it should be acknowledged that the results of clinical trials can only be applied to a portion of real-world patients, resulting in a decrease in guideline adherence. This dynamic should be considered in future guidelines and clinical trials.
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.