ArticleBritish journal of cancer2015
Are we able to predict survival in ER-positive HER2-negative breast cancer? A comparison of web-based models.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Communicating prognosis to women with early breast cancer - overview of prediction tools and the development and pilot testing of a decision aid.BMC health services research · 2019Pooled it
- Prognostic models for breast cancer: a systematic review.BMC cancer · 2019Pooled it
- Machine learning survival models trained on clinical data to identify high risk patients with hormone responsive HER2 negative breast cancer.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Validation of the online PREDICT tool in a cohort of early breast cancer in Brazil.Brazilian journal of medical and biological research = Revista brasileira de pesquisas medicas e biologica · 2022Article
- A Comparison Between the Online Prediction Models CancerMath and PREDICT as Prognostic Tools in Thai Breast Cancer Patients.Cancer management and research · 2020Article
- Article
- Development and validation of a new predictive model for breast cancer survival in New Zealand and comparison to the Nottingham prognostic index.BMC cancer · 2018Article
- Development and External Validation of Prediction Models for 10-Year Survival of Invasive Breast Cancer. Comparison with PREDICT and CancerMath.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSeveral prognostic models have been proposed and demonstrated to be predictive of survival outcomes in breast cancer. In the present article, we assessed whether three of these models are comparable at an individual level.
methodsWe used a large data set (n=965) of women with hormone receptor-positive and HER2-negative early breast cancer from the public data set of the METABRIC (Molecular Taxonomy of Breast Cancer International Consortium) study. We compared the overall performance of three validated web-based models: Adjuvant!, CancerMath.net and PREDICT, and we assessed concordance of these models in 10-year survival prediction.
resultsDiscrimination performances of the three calculators to predict 10-year survival were similar for the Adjuvant! Model, 0.74 (95% CI 0.71-0.77) for the Cancermath.net model and 0.72 (95% CI 0.69-0.75) for the PREDICT model). Calibration performances, assessed graphically, were satisfactory. Predictions were concordant and stable in the subgroup, with a predicted survival higher than 90% with a median score dispersion at 0.08 (range 0.06-0.10). Dispersion, however, reached 30% for the subgroups with a predicted survival between 10 and 50%.
conclusionThis study revealed that the three web-based predictors equally perform well at the population level, but exhibit a high degree of discordance in the intermediate and poor prognosis groups.
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.