Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24742063›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2014

Second primary cancer risk - the impact of applying different definitions of multiple primaries: results from a retrospective population-based cancer registry study.

Aishah Coyte, David S Morrison, Philip McLoone

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 124 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
124citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

124 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 205 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Identifying Locally Recurrent Versus Second Primary Breast Cancer: Genomic Versus Clinical Criteria from Carolina Breast Cancer Study Phase III.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2026
    Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Effects of web-based intervention on risk reduction behaviors in melanoma survivors.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2015
    Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Racial/ethnic and geographic differences in second primary cancers in stomach cancer survivors: a comparative study of U.S. and South Korea.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2026
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

64 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Aishah Coyte
David S Morrison
Philip McLooneWest of Scotland Cancer Surveillance Unit, Public Health Research Group, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK. philip.mcloone@glasgow.ac.uk.
University of Glasgow · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is evidence that cancer survivors are at increased risk of second primary cancers. Changes in the prevalence of risk factors and diagnostic techniques may have affected more recent risks.

methodsWe examined the incidence of second primary cancer among adults in the West of Scotland, UK, diagnosed with cancer between 2000 and 2004 (n = 57,393). We used National Cancer Institute Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results and International Agency for Research on Cancer definitions of multiple primary cancers and estimated indirectly standardised incidence ratios (SIR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

resultsThere was a high incidence of cancer during the first 60 days following diagnosis (SIR = 2.36, 95% CI = 2.12 to 2.63). When this period was excluded the risk was not raised, but it was high for some patient groups; in particular women aged <50 years with breast cancer (SIR = 2.13, 95% CI = 1.58 to 2.78), patients with bladder (SIR = 1.41, 95% CI = 1.19 to 1.67) and head & neck (SIR = 1.93, 95% CI = 1.67 to 2.21) cancer. Head & neck cancer patients had increased risks of lung cancer (SIR = 3.75, 95% CI = 3.01 to 4.62), oesophageal (SIR = 4.62, 95% CI = 2.73 to 7.29) and other head & neck tumours (SIR = 6.10, 95% CI = 4.17 to 8.61). Patients with bladder cancer had raised risks of lung (SIR = 2.18, 95% CI = 1.62 to 2.88) and prostate (SIR = 2.41, 95% CI = 1.72 to 3.30) cancer.

conclusionsRelative risks of second primary cancers may be smaller than previously reported. Premenopausal women with breast cancer and patients with malignant melanomas, bladder and head & neck cancers may benefit from increased surveillance and advice to avoid known risk factors.

Indexed as

FemaleHumansMaleNeoplasms, Second PrimaryRisk FactorsScotlandSurvivors

Identifiers

PMID24742063
PMCPMC4005906
OpenAlexW2149127322

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.