SEOM clinical guidelines in advanced and recurrent breast cancer (2018)

López-Muñiz, José Ignacio Chacón; Cruz‐Merino, Luis de la; Gregori, Joaquín Gavilá; Dueñas, Eduardo Martínez de; Oliveira, Mafalda; Palmer, Miguel Ángel Seguí; López, Isabel Álvarez; Antolin-Novoa, S.; Ezquerra, Meritxell Bellet; Cobo, Sara López-Tarruella

doi:10.1007/s12094-018-02010-w

Cited by 17 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 112 publications

(170 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The ASCO [46,48e50] and Dutch [31] CPGs had the highest reporting compliance (Appendix 8). 1 Chinese guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer 2018 (26) Chinese BC diagnosis treatment (26) NHCPRC China 2018 CJCRCN Not reported Not reported 2 Early breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up (27) ESMO BC 2019 (27) (30) AGO Advanced BC 2018 (30) AGO Germany 2018 Breast Care Review Not reported 6 Dutch breast reconstruction guideline (31) Dutch BCR (31) DPRS Netherlands 2017 JPRAS Systematic review AGREE II 7 C ancer de mama/Breast Cancer (32) Fisterra BC (32) Fisterra Spain 2017 Not published Not reported Not reported 8 SEOM clinical guidelines in early-stage breast cancer (33) SEOM earlystage (33) SEOM Spain 2018 CTO Consensus method, not specified technique Not reported 9 SEOM clinical guidelines in advanced and recurrent breast cancer (34) SEOM advanced BC (34) SEOM Spain 2018 CTO Consensus method, not specified technique Not reported 10 Abemaciclib with fulvestrant for treating hormone receptorpositive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer after endocrine the therapy (35) NICE Abemaciclib (35) NICE UK 2019 Not published Systematic review Not reported 11 Ribociclib with fulvestrant for treating hormone receptorpositive, HER2-negativHER2-negative, advanced breast cancer (36) NICE Ribociclib (36) NICE UK 2019 Not published Systematic review Not reported…”

Section: Reporting Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality and reporting of clinical guidelines for breast cancer treatment: A systematic review

Maes‐Carballo

Mignini²,

Martín-Díaz³

et al. 2020

The Breast

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background High-quality, well-reported clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs) underpinned by systematic reviews are needed. We appraised the quality and reporting of CPGs and CSs for breast cancer (BC) treatment. Methods Following protocol registration (Prospero n o : CRD42020164801), CPGs and CSs on BC treatment were identiﬁed, without language restrictions, through a systematic search of bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, CDSR) and online sources (12 guideline databases and 51 professional society websites) from January 2017 to June 2020. Data were extracted in duplicate assessing overall quality using AGREE II (% of maximum score) and reporting compliance using RIGHT (% of total 35 items); reviewer agreement was 98% and 96% respectively. Results There were 59 relevant guidance documents (43 CPGs, 16 CSs), of which 20 used systematic reviews for evidence synthesis. The median overall quality was 54.0% (IQR 35.9–74.3) and the median overall reporting compliance was 60.9% (IQR 44.5–84.4). The correlation between quality and reporting was 0.9. Compared to CSs, CPGs had better quality (55.4% vs 44.2%; p = 0.032) and reporting (67.18% vs 44.5%; p = 0.005). Compared to subjective methods of evidence analysis, guidance documents that used systematic reviews had better quality (76.3% vs 51.4%; p = 0.001) and reporting (87.1% vs 59.4%; p = 0.001). Conclusion The quality and reporting of CPGs and CSs in BC treatment were moderately strong. Systematic reviews should be used to improve the quality and reporting of CPGs and CSs.

show abstract

Section: Reporting Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality and reporting of clinical guidelines for breast cancer treatment: A systematic review

Maes‐Carballo

Mignini²,

Martín-Díaz³

et al. 2020

The Breast

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Of the 4116 potential citations identified, a total of 167 documents (139 CPGs 33‐171 and 28 CSs 172‐199 ) were identified for final evaluation (Figure 1). ICC for reviewer agreement was 0.97.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shared decision making in breast cancer treatment guidelines: Development of a quality assessment tool and a systematic review

Maes‐Carballo

Muñoz‐Núñez²,

Martín-Díaz³

et al. 2020

Health Expectations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background It is not clear whether clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs) are adequately promoting shared decision making (SDM). Objective To evaluate the recommendations about SDM in CPGs and CSs concerning breast cancer (BC) treatment. Search strategy Following protocol registration (Prospero no.: CRD42018106643), CPGs and CSs on BC treatment were identified, without language restrictions, through systematic search of bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, CDSR) and online sources (12 guideline databases and 51 professional society websites) from January 2010 to December 2019. Inclusion criteria CPGs and CSs on BC treatment were selected whether published in a journal or in an online document. Data extraction and synthesis A 31‐item SDM quality assessment tool was developed and used to extract data in duplicate. Main results There were 167 relevant CPGs (139) and CSs (28); SDM was reported in only 40% of the studies. SDM was reported more often in recent publications after 2015 (42/101 (41.6 %) vs 46/66 (69.7 %), P = .0003) but less often in medical journal publications (44/101 (43.5 %) vs 17/66 (25.7 %), P = .009). In CPGs and CSs with SDM, only 8/66 (12%) met one‐fifth (6 of 31) of the quality items; only 14/66 (8%) provided clear and precise SDM recommendations. Discussion and conclusions SDM descriptions and recommendations in CPGs and CSs concerning BC treatment need improvement. SDM was more frequently reported in CPGs and CSs in recent years, but surprisingly it was less often covered in medical journals, a feature that needs attention.

show abstract

“…Treatment for elderly patients with luminal MBC aims to improve quality of life and, if possible, increase survival. National and international clinical guidelines recommend prioritizing the use of hormonal treatment because it has a better toxicity profile [ 26 , 27 ].…”

Section: Treatment Of Elderly Patients With Luminal Metastatic Breast...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Expert consensus to optimize the treatment of elderly patients with luminal metastatic breast cancer

Torregrosa¹,

Barco-Berrón

Cotes-Sanchís³

et al. 2022

Clin Transl Oncol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most patients diagnosed with luminal metastatic breast cancer (MBC) who are seen in oncology consultations are elderly. MBC in elderly patients is characterized by a higher percentage of hormone receptor (HR) expression and a lower expression of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). The decision regarding which treatment to administer to these patients is complex due to the lack of solid evidence to support the decision-making process. The objective of this paper is to review the scientific evidence on the treatment of elderly patients with luminal MBC. For this purpose, the Oncogeriatrics Section of the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM), the Spanish Breast Cancer Research Group (GEICAM) and the SOLTI Group appointed a group of experts who have worked together to establish consensus recommendations to optimize the treatment of this population. It was concluded that the chronological age of the patient alone should not guide therapeutic decisions and that a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) should be performed whenever possible before establishing treatment. Treatment selection for the elderly population should consider the patient’s baseline status, the expected benefit and toxicity of each treatment, and the impact of treatment toxicity on the patient’s quality of life and functionality.

show abstract

SEOM clinical guidelines in advanced and recurrent breast cancer (2018)

Cited by 17 publications

References 112 publications

Quality and reporting of clinical guidelines for breast cancer treatment: A systematic review

Quality and reporting of clinical guidelines for breast cancer treatment: A systematic review

Shared decision making in breast cancer treatment guidelines: Development of a quality assessment tool and a systematic review

Expert consensus to optimize the treatment of elderly patients with luminal metastatic breast cancer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About