Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19904562›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2010

Prediction of outcome of patients with metastatic breast cancer: evaluation with prognostic factors and Nottingham prognostic index.

Mu-Tai Liu, Wen-Tao Huang, Ai-Yih Wang, Chia-Chun Huang, Chao-Yuan Huang, Tung-Hao Chang, Chu-Pin Pi, Hao-Han Yang

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Mu-Tai LiuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Changhua Christian Hospital, 135, Nan Shiau Street, Changhua, Taiwan, 500, Republic of China. giessen@kimo.com
Wen-Tao Huang
Ai-Yih Wang
Chia-Chun Huang
Chao-Yuan Huang
Tung-Hao Chang
Chu-Pin Pi
Hao-Han Yang

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

goals of workThe purpose of this study is to analyze the survival rate of patients with metastatic breast cancer and to evaluate the outcome of these patients using prognostic factors and Nottingham prognostic index. MATERIALS AND

methodsFrom February 1992 to August 2008, 135 patients with metastatic breast cancer were treated at the Changhua Christian Hospital. In these patients, we evaluated the significance of the following factors in predicting the survival rate after the occurrence of metastasis: age, initial stage at primary diagnosis, histological grade, Karnofsky performance status (KPS), estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor status, human epidermoid growth factor receptor 2 overexpression status, number of axillary lymph node metastasis, history of adjuvant radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy, disease-free interval, status of local recurrence, status of various sites of distant metastases, number of distant metastases, and Nottingham prognostic index. MAIN

resultsThe 1-, 2-, and 5-year survival rates were 53.3%, 25.2%, and 1.5%, respectively. In the univariate analysis, KPS, histological grade, ER status, initial stage at primary diagnosis, number of axillary lymph node metastasis, liver metastasis, disease-free interval, first-/second-/third-line chemotherapy for recurrence or metastasis, number of metastases, and Nottingham prognostic index had significant impact on survival. The median survival of patients determined as corresponding to Nottingham low-risk group, intermediate-risk group, and high-risk group was 29.3, 17.9, and 4.6 months, respectively. In our multivariate analysis, Karnofsky performance status (p = 0.030) and Nottingham prognostic index (p ≤ 0.0001) were significant prognostic factors for survival, while first-/second-/third-line chemotherapy for recurrence or metastasis (p = 0.002) was a significant predictor for the outcome of the treatment.

conclusionsThe prognosis of patients with metastatic breast cancer is poor. In spite of the fact that many advances in treatment have been made, numerous additional questions have arisen; new drugs and therapeutic regimens are needed to improve the outcomes of patients, and further well-designed randomized trials are warranted.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsBiomarkers, TumorBreast NeoplasmsDisease ProgressionFemaleHumansKarnofsky Performance StatusLymphatic MetastasisMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasm StagingPrognosisBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.