| Title |
Discrepancies between ESMO and NCCN breast cancer guidelines: An appraisal
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The Breast, March 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.breast.2015.02.031 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Flora Zagouri, Paraskevi Liakou, Rupert Bartsch, Fedro A. Peccatori, Alexandra Tsigginou, Constantine Dimitrakakis, George C. Zografos, Meletios-Athanassios Dimopoulos, H.A. Azim |
| Abstract |
An ever growing number of medical organizations, societies, working groups and governmental agencies issue algorithms i.e. guidelines, of decision making flowcharts in diagnosis and treatment in a variety of diseases. In the field of evidence-based diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer, a large number of guidelines are available both from medical associations and national health departments. Among the most appreciated and utilized comprehensive guides is the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer Guidelines and from the other side of the Atlantic the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines in Breast Cancer. Although there is much concordance between the guidelines from these two organizations, it is intriguing to locate their discrepancies also. The aim of this report is to present a number of different points between ESMO and NCCN in the whole spectrum of breast cancer management, from prevention and diagnosis to treatment and follow up. This systematic review was performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines using a predefined search strategy and summarizes in detail, the differences between ESMO and NCCN guidelines regarding genetic risk evaluation and screening, surgery, chemotherapy, endocrine treatment, targeted biological agents, radiotherapy, pregnancy and fertility and follow-up. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Ecuador | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 99 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 18 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 12 | 12% |
| Other | 10 | 10% |
| Other | 26 | 25% |
| Unknown | 7 | 7% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 51 | 50% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 16 | 16% |
| Unknown | 12 | 12% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 18 May 2015.
All research outputs
#3,532,941
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from The Breast
#220
of 1,586 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,858
of 277,727 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Breast
#4
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,586 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
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 277,727 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.