ArticleTumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine2013
The prognosis of synchronous and metachronous bilateral breast cancer in Chinese patients.
Article in Tumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- The prognostic comparison among unilateral, bilateral, synchronous bilateral, and metachronous bilateral breast cancer: A meta-analysis of studies from recent decade (2008-2018).Cancer medicine · 2019Pooled it
- Clinical characteristics and prognostic analysis of metachronous bilateral breast carcinoma: a retrospective study based on propensity score matching.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2024Article
- A comparative clinicopathological and survival analysis of synchronous bilateral breast cancers.Histology and histopathology · 2022Article
- Bilateral breast cancer in China: A 10-year single-center retrospective study (2006-2016).Cancer medicine · 2021Article
- Concordance of Hormone Receptor Status and BRCA1/2 Mutation Among Women With Synchronous Bilateral Breast Cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Article
- Comparative genomic analysis reveals bilateral breast cancers are genetically independent.Oncotarget · 2015Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study was undertaken to determine the differences in the clinicopathology and survival between synchronous bilateral breast cancer (sBBC) and metachronous bilateral breast cancer (mBBC). Additionally, we analyzed the risk factors for single tumors to develop as sBBC or mBBC. Of the 190 bilateral breast cancer (BBC) cases, 84 cases were sBBC and 106 were mBBC. We defined sBBC as two tumors that developed within 12 months, while mBBC was defined as two tumors that developed over more than 12 months. The peak age of onset of the first mBBC tumors was significantly younger than that of sBBC tumors (p = 0.001). There was a higher concordance rate of ER/ER positivity and PR/PR positivity in the first and second tumors of sBBC than mBBC. The two sBBC breast cancers had relatively similar hormone conditions because of the low rate of ER and PR transformation from positive to negative or vice versa. We determined that patients who presented with extracapsular extension (p = 0.008) and ER positivity (p = 0.001) tend to have synchronous cancers, while patients with 3+ HER2 were more likely to develop metachronous tumors. The prognosis for mBBC was better than that for sBBC when the survival time of mBBC was measured from the initial observation of the first tumors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.