Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23305429›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2013

Molecular profiles of screen detected vs. symptomatic breast cancer and their impact on survival: results from a clinical series.

Anna Crispo, Maddalena Barba, Giuseppe D'Aiuto, Michelino De Laurentiis, Maria Grimaldi, Massimo Rinaldo, Giuseppina Caolo, Massimiliano D'Aiuto, Immacolata Capasso, Emanuela Esposito and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 62 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Cancer overdiagnosis: a challenge in the era of screening.Journal of the National Cancer Center · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Breast Cancer Prevention: Time for Change.JCO oncology practice · 2021
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Emerging Trends in Family History of Breast Cancer and Associated Risk.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2017
    Article
  20. Differences in subtype distribution between screen-detected and symptomatic invasive breast cancer and their impact on survival.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2017
    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

14 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Anna CrispoEpidemiology Unit, National Cancer Institute G, Pascale Foundation, Via Mariano Semmola, Naples 80131, Italy. anna.crispo@tin.it
Maddalena Barba
Giuseppe D'Aiuto
Michelino De Laurentiis
Maria Grimaldi
Massimo Rinaldo
Giuseppina Caolo
Massimiliano D'Aiuto
Immacolata Capasso
Emanuela Esposito
Alfonso Amore
Maurizio Di Bonito
Gerardo Botti
Maurizio Montella
Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS "Fondazione G. Pascale" · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStage shift is widely considered a major determinant of the survival benefit conferred by breast cancer screening. However, factors and mechanisms underlying such a prognostic advantage need further clarification. We sought to compare the molecular characteristics of screen detected vs. symptomatic breast cancers and assess whether differences in tumour biology might translate into survival benefit.

methodsIn a clinical series of 448 women with operable breast cancer, the Kaplan-Meier method and the log-rank test were used to estimate the likelihood of cancer recurrence and death. The Cox proportional hazard model was used for the multivariate analyses including mode of detection, age at diagnosis, tumour size, and lymph node status. These same models were applied to subgroups defined by molecular subtypes.

resultsScreen detected breast cancers tended to show more favourable clinicopathological features and survival outcomes compared to symptomatic cancers. The luminal A subtype was more common in women with mammography detected tumours than in symptomatic patients (68.5 vs. 59.0%, p=0.04). Data analysis across categories of molecular subtypes revealed significantly longer disease free and overall survival for screen detected cancers with a luminal A subtype only (p=0.01 and 0.02, respectively). For women with a luminal A subtype, the independent prognostic role of mode of detection on recurrence was confirmed in Cox proportional hazard models (p=0.03). An independent role of modality of detection on survival was also suggested (p=0.05).

conclusionsMolecular subtypes did not substantially explain the differences in survival outcomes between screened and symptomatic patients. However, our results suggest that molecular profiles might play a role in interpreting such differences at least partially.Further studies are warranted to reinterpret the efficacy of screening programmes in the light of tumour biology.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAntigens, NeoplasmBiomarkers, TumorBreast NeoplasmsDrug Screening Assays, AntitumorFemaleHumansMass ScreeningMiddle AgedNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalStatistics, NonparametricSurvival AnalysisAntigens, NeoplasmBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID23305429
PMCPMC3598199
OpenAlexW1970832719

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.