ArticleBMC cancer2013
Comparative performances of prognostic indexes for breast cancer patients presenting with brain metastases.
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 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, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Role of microsurgical tumor burden reduction in patients with breast cancer brain metastases considering molecular subtypes: a two-center volumetric survival analysis.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2024Article
- Article
- Impact of breast cancer molecular subtypes on the incidence, kinetics and prognosis of central nervous system metastases in a large multicentre real-life cohort.British journal of cancer · 2019Article
- Hormone receptors status: a strong determinant of the kinetics of brain metastases occurrence compared with HER2 status in breast cancer.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2018Article
- A nomogram for predicting survival in patients with breast cancer brain metastasis.Oncology letters · 2018Article
- Comparison of nine prognostic scores in patients with brain metastases of breast cancer receiving radiotherapy of the brain.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2016Article
- Assessment of prognostic scores in brain metastases from breast cancer.Neuro-oncology · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSeveral prognostic indexes (PI) have been developed in the brain metastases (BM) setting to help physicians tailor treatment options and stratify patients enrolled in clinical studies. The aim of our study was to compare the clinical relevance of the major PI for breast cancer BM.
methodsClinical and biological data of 250 breast cancer patients diagnosed with BM at two institutions between 1995 and 2010 were retrospectively reviewed. The prognostic value and accuracy of recursive partitioning analysis (RPA), graded prognostic assessment (GPA), basic score for BM (BS-BM), breast RPA, breast GPA, Le Scodan's Score and a clinico-biological score developed in a phase I study (P1PS) were assessed using Cox regression models. PI comparison was performed using Harrell's concordance index.
resultsAfter a median follow-up of 4.5 years, median overall survival (OS) from BM diagnosis was 8.9 months (CI 95%, 6.9-10.3 months). All PI were significantly associated with OS. Harrell's concordance indexes C favored BS-BM and RPA. In multivariate analysis, the RPA, Le Scodan's score and GPA were found to be the best independent predictors of OS. In multivariate analysis restricted to the 159 patients with known LDH and proteinemia, RPA 2 and 3, Le Scodan's Score 3 and P1PS 2/3 were associated with worse survival. RPA was the most accurate score to identify patients with long (superior to 12 months) and short (inferior to 3 months) life expectancy.
conclusionsRPA seems to be the most useful score and performs better than new PI for breast cancer BM.
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.