4.7 Article

Current Situation of Diagnosis and Treatment of HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients in China: A Nationwide Cross-Sectional Survey of Doctors

期刊

JOURNAL OF PERSONALIZED MEDICINE
卷 13, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jpm13020365

关键词

breast cancer; metastasis; target therapy; cancer management

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This survey revealed that Chinese doctors generally followed guidelines in diagnosing and treating HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer patients, but their choices were constrained by economic factors.
Background: The Advanced Breast Cancer Alliance conducted a nationwide investigation to understand the current situation of the diagnosis and treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients. Methods: In 2019, electronic questionnaires including basic information about respondents, characteristics of patients, and the present status of diagnosis and treatment were sent to 495 doctors from 203 medical centers covering 28 provinces. Results: The factors that influenced treatment plans included the disease process, the performance status, and the economic status of patients. Regimens and response to neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy were important factors in the decision of the first-line treatment. Overall, 54% of doctors retained trastuzumab and replaced chemotherapy drugs in second-line treatment regimens for patients with progression-free survival (PFS) >= 6 months in the first-line setting, while 52% of participants chose pyrotinib plus capecitabine for patients with PFS < 6 months. Economic factors played an important role in doctors' decision-making and the varying treatment options for respondents in first-tier, second-tier, and other cities. Conclusions: This large-scale survey regarding the diagnosis and treatment of HER2-positive MBC patients revealed that clinical decisions made by Chinese doctors followed the guidelines, but their choices were constrained by economic factors.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据