ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2010
Management of operable invasive breast cancer in women over the age of 70: long-term results of a large-scale single-institution experience.
Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Breast diseases in women over the age of 65 in Monastir, Tunisia.The Pan African medical journal · 2018Article
- Diagnosis, treatment characteristics, and survival of women with breast cancer aged 65 and above: a hospital-based retrospective study.BMC women's health · 2013Article
- Effects of multidisciplinary team working on breast cancer survival: retrospective, comparative, interventional cohort study of 13 722 women.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2012Article
- Early breast cancer in the older woman.Clinics in geriatric medicine · 2012Review
- Breast cancer in elderly women (≥ 80 years): variation in standard of care?Journal of surgical oncology · 2011Article
- When reporting on older patients with cancer, frailty information is needed.Annals of surgical oncology · 2011Article
- Early breast cancer in the older woman.The oncologist · 2011Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe treatment of choice for elderly women with breast cancer remains controversial. This retrospective analysis of a cohort from a single institution was designed to evaluate whether such patients are really undertreated because of their age and to reappraise their usual management.
methodsThe characteristics of 538 patients aged > or = 70 years with operable breast cancer, treated between 1995 and 1999, were retrospectively analyzed comparing patients aged 70 to 75 years (group I, n = 288), 75 to 80 years (group II, n = 156), and > or = 80 years (group III, n = 94). Cause-specific survival, distant recurrence-free interval, and local control were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared by log rank test. Multivariate analysis used Cox regression.
resultsIn group III, tumors were more frequently T2 than T1 (P < 0.0001) and estrogen receptor negative (P = 0.045) than in groups I and II. Surgery was performed in 94.6% of patients, breast-conserving in 72.1% (62% in group III; P = 0.0015) with axillary dissection in 89.2% (77% in group III; P = 0.0015); 100% received radiotherapy after lumpectomy (hypofractionated in 63% of group III; P < 0.0001). Adjuvant hormone therapy and chemotherapy were administered to 57 and 3.7% of patients, respectively. At 7 years, no difference in the three groups was observed for cause-specific survival (91% for group I, 89% for group II, 86% for group III) distant recurrence-free interval, and local control (>90%).
conclusionsElderly patients with operable breast cancer who are completely and correctly treated with realistic treatment options that are based on surgery and adjuvant radiotherapy have a similar chance of being cured as younger patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20177798What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.