RAPCHEM

An aspect marked incomplete is a question the public commentary did not let us answer. We show it rather than hide it.

Screened window

Feb 15, 2020 → Aug 19, 2026

Cited window

Aug 10, 2022 → Aug 7, 2026

Retrieved

Oct 31, 2026

Title

Radiotherapy After Primary CHEMotherapy for cT1-2cN1M0 Breast Cancer.: a Multicentre Prospective Registration Study.

Also known as

BOOG 2010-03

Registry

NCT01279304

Study IDs

10-04-10/02

Sponsor

Maastricht Radiation Oncology

Collaborators

The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Diakonessenhuis, Utrecht

Design

Observational · Observational, cohort, prospective

Status

Completed

Enrollment

851 actual

Registered

2011-01-19

Start

2011-01

Primary completion

2017-12 actual

Primary endpoint

locoregional recurrence rate

Interventions

3 registered

This report does not judge efficacy, estimate HCP prevalence or consensus or give treatment advice.

• –Discussion that does not name the trial may be missing from this edition.
• –The source search did not run to completion, so some matching discussion may be missing.
• –For 1 recording, a transcript separated by speaker was not available, so quotes come from the original automatic transcript and may lack speaker labels.
• –Not yet captured in this edition: a view on short-course radiotherapy versus omission for selected patients and how waiting lists and treatment aversion affect choices.
• –Some passages in the sources used in this report were not fully assessed for clinician views, so a view there may be missing from this edition.
• –37 statements in the sources reviewed for this edition are about other patients or topics, or only mention the trial, and are not counted.
• –Further source limits: discussion that describes the trial without naming it may be incomplete; some discussion that describes the trial without naming it may be missing; sources about other trials are not included.
• –This is an account of the sources reviewed for this edition, not a representative survey of HCP opinion or a measure of consensus. Organizational communications, presentation relays and reposts must not be counted as independent clinician views.
• –The 2022 five-year discussions, preliminary NSABP B-51 commentary in December 2023 and 2026 ten-year discussions should not be treated as contemporaneous positions or evidence that any author changed practice.
• –Some speakers' identities or clinical roles are not established in the sources used in this report; each statement is attributed only as far as its source shows.
• –Some interview statements have no established speaker identity. Equivalent wording in another version of an interview does not authorize assigning the unnamed version to a named person.
• –The May 2024 unnamed-trial interview contains unclear wording and does not establish a specific initial nodal category. Its views bear on response-adapted radiotherapy but are not RAPCHEM results.
• –RAPCHEM’s response-defined groups and nonrandomized design do not isolate the causal effect of radiotherapy omission. Surgical intensity, response-related prognosis and variation in delivered radiotherapy qualify favorable interpretations.
• –Potential reductions in morbidity and improved quality of life are not demonstrated comparative outcomes in the cited discussion; Portugal a speaker explicitly notes the absence of direct quality-of-life data.
• –Patient totals differ across coverage: some presentation posts report 848, while later ten-year accounts report 838. The report preserves those differences rather than treating them as interchangeable.
• –A separate protocol was not available among the reviewed sources. Registry methods and publication context do not resolve every treatment-detail question raised in commentary.

How reports are built and checked: Methods.

Last checked for new commentary Oct 31, 2026. A new or changed finding gets a new version number; added evidence alone is a smaller update. No corrections.

Paste this into ChatGPT, Claude, Microsoft Copilot or your own agent. It previews this report through the free Erudio MCP server, tells you whether it answers your question, and orders it if you ask. Some agents ask you to confirm pasted instructions before acting; that is expected.

Help me decide whether to buy the Erudio report "RAPCHEM" (NCT01279304), and buy it for me if I ask. Erudio reports cover what clinicians say in public about one clinical trial, with every verified statement linked to its source.

1. Use the free Erudio MCP server at https://mcp.erudio.com/free; it needs no sign-in. Nothing needs installing: if it is not connected in this app and you can make HTTP requests, call it directly with JSON-RPC POSTs to that URL (initialize, then tools/call), sending "Accept: application/json, text/event-stream". Call get_report_card with slug "rapchem-01279304". If you cannot make requests, read https://www.erudio.com/reports/rapchem-nct01279304.md instead.
2. In a few lines, tell me what the report covers: its findings, its verified statements and sources, its evidence window, what it leaves out, and the price of each product (offer). Then ask what I need it for, and say plainly whether this report answers it.
3. If I want it, ask for my work email and the product: the current edition, or 3, 6 or 12 months of weekly updates. Call create_order with report "NCT01279304", that product and email, then show me the quote and the checkout_url to pay by card. If you have a payment client for HTTP 402 payments and I agree, you can pay the pay_url instead. Nothing is charged until one is paid.
4. Once it is paid, call get_order with the status_url: it returns my license key. Then use the Erudio MCP server at https://mcp.erudio.com/mcp with the header "Authorization: Bearer <key>". Call read_report with report_id erudio-nct01279304 and sections ["all"], and summarize the findings for me with their sources. The full report is large (about 500 KB): save the response to a file and work from it rather than printing it. If you cannot, read sections ["narratives"] first, the executive summary and analysis.

When you tell me what clinicians said, give each view as theirs, with its source. Counts are the sources the report kept, not the share of clinicians who agree. Reports are not medical advice.
Keep the key private to my organization.

curl https://www.erudio.com/reports/rapchem-nct01279304.json
curl https://www.erudio.com/reports/rapchem-nct01279304.md

# MCP, no sign-in (https://mcp.erudio.com/free)
get_report_card({ "slug": "rapchem-01279304" })