ArticleThe breast journal2026
Real-World Practice Patterns in Diagnosis and First-Line Treatment in Metastatic Breast Cancer.
Article in The breast journal, 2026. 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.
- Real-World Practice Patterns in Diagnosis and First-Line Treatment in Metastatic Breast Cancer.The breast journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introDivergence from national guidelines and variations in practice patterns impact care and outcomes in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). We sought to assess the quality of care in the diagnosis and treatment of real-world patients with MBC in Washington State.
methodsData were retrospectively analyzed using a linked cancer registry and insurance claims platform for patients with recurrent or de novo MBC diagnosed between 2008 and 2019.
resultsWe identified 1101 patients with MBC (median age: 66), 715 recurrent and 386 de novo. Most patients were White (89%), all were insured (Commercial [47%], Medicaid [4%], Medicare [35%], or multiple [13%]), and 15% lived in areas of high deprivation (Area Deprivation Index [ADI]: 8-10). Of the patients with recurrent MBC, less than half received a biopsy (49.5%) or biomarker reassessment (48.7%) to confirm the diagnosis of MBC. Patients treated at high- and medium-volume centers had higher rates of biopsy than low-volume clinics (51.9%, 54.3%, and 40.7%, respectively, p = 0.03). ET alone was more common in patients who did not undergo biopsy (62.3% vs. 37.7%, p < 0.001) or biomarker reassessment (62.7% vs. 37.3%, p < 0.001). Among the 677 patients with estrogen receptor (ER)+/HER2- MBC (de novo and recurrent), most received ET alone (69%), followed by CT (22%) and CDKi + ET (9%). Importantly, 40% of patients were treated before CDK4/6i approval. Most patients who received CDKi + ET were < 65 years old (65.2%, p < 0.02). Patients with commercial insurance were more likely to receive CDKi + ET compared to those with Medicare/Medicaid. (60.9% vs. 26.1%, p = 0.10).
conclusionOur findings highlight key gaps in MBC management and serve as a launch point for patient-centered and quality-promoting initiatives.
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.