Calc Function

  • Diagnosis
  • Rule Out
  • Prognosis
  • Formula
  • Treatment
  • Algorithm
  • Disease
    Select...
    Specialty
    Select...
    Chief Complaint
    Select...
    Organ System
    Select...

    Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy for Women With Hormone Receptor-positive Breast Cancer(beta)

    Based on guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

    Treatment

    Postmenopause

    Strong recommendation
    export-img
    High quality evidence

    Duration

    N/A
    export-img

    N/A
    export-img

    N/A
    export-img

    N/A
    export-img

    N/A
    export-img

    N/A
    export-img

    Aromatase Inhibitor vs Tamoxifen

    N/A
    export-img

    N/A
    export-img

    N/A
    export-img

    Toxicities and Risks

    N/A
    export-img

    Premenopause at Time of Diagnosis

    N/A
    export-img

    Strong recommendation
    export-img
    High quality evidence

    Strong recommendation
    export-img
    High quality evidence

    Third-generation Aromatase Inhibitors

    N/A
    export-img

    N/A
    export-img

    export-img
    Low quality evidence

    N/A
    export-img

    Sequence

    N/A
    export-img

    Strong recommendation
    export-img
    High quality evidence

    Strong recommendation
    export-img
    High quality evidence

    Adjuvant Ovarian Suppression

    N/A
    export-img

    N/A
    export-img

    N/A
    export-img

    N/A
    export-img

    N/A
    export-img

    N/A
    export-img

    N/A
    export-img

    N/A
    export-img

    N/A
    export-img

    Ovarian Suppression and Tamoxifen or Aromatase Inhibitor

    N/A
    export-img

    N/A
    export-img

    N/A
    export-img

    How strong is the ASCO's recommendation?

    Strong recommendation
    High confidence that recommendation reflects best practice, based on (1) strong evidence for true net effect (benefits > harms); (2) consistent results, with no or minor exceptions; (3) minor or no concerns about study quality; and/or (4) extent of panelists’ agreement.
    Moderate recommendation
    Moderate confidence that recommendation reflects best practice, based on (1) good evidence for true net effect (benefits > harms); (2) consistent results, with minor and/or few exceptions; (3) minor and/or few concerns about study quality; and/or (4) extent of panelists’ agreement.
    Some confidence that recommendation offers the best current guidance for practice, based on (1) limited evidence for true net effect (benefits > harms); (2) consistent results, but with important exceptions; (3) concerns about study quality; and/or (4) extent of panelists’ agreement.
    N/A
    No recommendation was assigned.
    High quality evidence
    High confidence that available evidence reflects true magnitude and direction of net effect (i.e., balance of benefits vs harms) and that further research is very unlikely to change either magnitude or direction of this net effect.
    Intermediate quality evidence
    Moderate confidence that available evidence reflects true magnitude and direction of net effect. Further research is unlikely to alter the direction of the net effect; however, it might alter the magnitude of the net effect.
    Low quality evidence
    Low confidence that available evidence reflects true magnitude and direction of the net effect. Further research may change either the magnitude and/or direction of this net effect.
    Insufficient evidence
    Evidence is insufficient to discern true magnitude and direction of net effect. Further research may better inform the topic. The use of the consensus opinion of experts is reasonable to inform outcomes related to the topic.
    No evidence was assigned.