↓ Skip to main content

Neoadjuvant trials in early breast cancer: pathological response at surgery and correlation to longer term outcomes – what does it all mean?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Neoadjuvant trials in early breast cancer: pathological response at surgery and correlation to longer term outcomes – what does it all mean?
Published in
BMC Medicine, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12916-015-0472-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Helena Earl, Elena Provenzano, Jean Abraham, Janet Dunn, Anne-Laure Vallier, Ioannis Gounaris, Louise Hiller

Abstract

Neoadjuvant breast cancer trials are important for speeding up the introduction of new treatments for patients with early breast cancer and for the highly productive translational research which they facilitate. Meta-analysis of trial data shows clear correlation between pathological response at surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and longer-term outcomes at an individual patient level. However, this does not appear to be present on individual trial level analysis, when correlating improved outcome for the investigational arm for the primary endpoint (pathological response) with longer-term outcomes. The correlation between pathological response and longer-term outcomes in trials is dependent on many factors. These include definitions of pathological response, both complete and partial; assessment methods for pathological response at surgery; subtype and prognosis of breast cancer at diagnosis; number of patients recruited; adjuvant treatments; the mechanism of action of the investigational drug; the length of follow-up at the time of reporting; the definitions used in longer-term outcomes analysis; clonal heterogeneity; and new adaptive trial designs with additional neo/adjuvant treatments. Future developments of neoadjuvant breast cancer trials are discussed. With so many factors influencing the correlation of longer-term outcomes for trial-level data, we conclude that the main focus of neoadjuvant trials should remain the primary endpoint of pathological response. Neoadjuvant breast cancer trials are very important investigational studies that will continue to increase our understanding of the disease and offer the potential of more rapid introduction of new treatments for women with high-risk early breast cancer. In the future, we are likely to see both novel trial designs adopted in the neoadjuvant context and modifications of neo/adjuvant treatments for pathological non-responders within clinical trials. Both of these have the intention of improving longer-term outcomes for patients who do not have a good pathological response to first-line neoadjuvant treatment. If successful, these developments are likely to reduce further any positive correlation between pathological response and longer-term outcomes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 61 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 13 21%
Researcher 12 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 15 24%
Unknown 8 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 60%
Engineering 5 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 10 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 September 2015.
All research outputs
#14,261,929
of 23,299,593 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#2,929
of 3,506 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#138,467
of 275,564 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#89
of 94 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,299,593 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,506 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.7. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 275,564 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 94 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.