Cochrane · systematic review · CD013538
Ovarian suppression for adjuvant treatment of hormone receptor‐positive early breast cancer
Bui, KT, Willson, ML, Goel, S, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2020 · Cochrane Library
Breast CancerAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
7
current version
GRADE rated
7
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 3 · 42.9%Moderate 2 · 28.6%High 2 · 28.6%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
OFS compared to no OFS for adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer
Population: women with early breast cancer
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Overall survival (OS) Median OFS vs no OFS | HR 0.86 [0.78, 0.94] | 11 studies · 10374 participants | High |
Disease‐free survival (DFS) Median OFS vs no OFS | HR 0.83 [0.77, 0.9] | 10 studies · 8899 participants | High |
Toxicity ‐ hot flushes (a combination of "grade 3/4" and "any grade" toxicity) OFS vs no OFS | RR 1.6 [1.41, 1.82] | 6 studies · 5581 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Toxicity ‐ mood OFS vs no OFS | no estimate extracted | 7 studies · 5354 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Toxicity ‐ bone health (osteoporosis defined by a T score < ‐2.5) OFS vs no OFS | RR 1.66 [1.1, 2.5] | 1 study · 2011 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Contralateral breast cancer OFS vs no OFS | RR 0.75 [0.57, 0.97] | 8 studies · 7856 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Quality of life OFS vs no OFS | no estimate extracted | 5 studies · 2996 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |