Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21497451›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics2012

Effect of tumor subtype on survival and the graded prognostic assessment for patients with breast cancer and brain metastases.

Paul W Sperduto, Norbert Kased, David Roberge, Zhiyuan Xu, Ryan Shanley, Xianghua Luo, Penny K Sneed, Samuel T Chao, Robert J Weil, John Suh and 12 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 184 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
184citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

184 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

124 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

22 authors.

Paul W SperdutoUniversity of Minnesota Gamma Knife, Minneapolis Radiation Oncology, Minneapolis, MN, USA. psperduto@mropa.com
Norbert Kased
David Roberge
Zhiyuan Xu
Ryan Shanley
Xianghua Luo
Penny K Sneed
Samuel T Chao
Robert J Weil
John Suh
Amit Bhatt
Ashley W Jensen
Paul D Brown
Helen A Shih
John Kirkpatrick
Laurie E Gaspar
John B Fiveash
Veronica Chiang
Jonathan P S Knisely
Christina Maria Sperduto
Nancy Lin
Minesh Mehta

Funding

Women's CancerP30CA077598 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TWIN CITIES · PI Douglas Yee · 1998 to 2026
$100.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA077598NCI NIH HHS P30- CA77598
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe diagnosis-specific Graded Prognostic Assessment (GPA) was published to clarify prognosis for patients with brain metastases. This study refines the existing Breast-GPA by analyzing a larger cohort and tumor subtype. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A multi-institutional retrospective database of 400 breast cancer patients treated for newly diagnosed brain metastases was generated. Prognostic factors significant for survival were analyzed by multivariate Cox regression and recursive partitioning analysis (RPA). Factors were weighted by the magnitude of their regression coefficients to define the GPA index.

resultsSignificant prognostic factors by multivariate Cox regression and RPA were Karnofsky performance status (KPS), HER2, ER/PR status, and the interaction between ER/PR and HER2. RPA showed age was significant for patients with KPS 60 to 80. The median survival time (MST) overall was 13.8 months, and for GPA scores of 0 to 1.0, 1.5 to 2.0, 2.5 to 3.0, and 3.5 to 4.0 were 3.4 (n = 23), 7.7 (n = 104), 15.1 (n = 140), and 25.3 (n = 133) months, respectively (p < 0.0001). Among HER2-negative patients, being ER/PR positive improved MST from 6.4 to 9.7 months, whereas in HER2-positive patients, being ER/PR positive improved MST from 17.9 to 20.7 months. The log-rank statistic (predictive power) was 110 for the Breast-GPA vs. 55 for tumor subtype.

conclusionsThe Breast-GPA documents wide variation in prognosis and shows clear separation between subgroups of patients with breast cancer and brain metastases. This tool will aid clinical decision making and stratification in clinical trials. These data confirm the effect of tumor subtype on survival and show the Breast-GPA offers significantly more predictive power than the tumor subtype alone.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsBrain NeoplasmsBreast NeoplasmsBreast Neoplasms, MaleCohort StudiesErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesFemaleHumansKarnofsky Performance StatusMaleMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisPrognosisErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesReceptors, EstrogenReceptors, Progesterone

Identifiers

PMID21497451
PMCPMC3172400

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.