Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25675148›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2015

An evaluation of the prognostic model PREDICT using the POSH cohort of women aged ⩽40 years at breast cancer diagnosis.

T Maishman, E Copson, L Stanton, S Gerty, E Dicks, L Durcan, G C Wishart, P Pharoah, POSH Steering Group, D Eccles

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

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 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

10 authors.

T MaishmanCancer Sciences Academic Unit and University of Southampton Clinical Trials Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
E CopsonCancer Sciences Academic Unit and University of Southampton Clinical Trials Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
L StantonCancer Sciences Academic Unit and University of Southampton Clinical Trials Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
S GertyCancer Sciences Academic Unit and University of Southampton Clinical Trials Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
E DicksDepartment of Oncology, Strangeways Research Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Worts Causeway, Cambridge CB1 8RN, UK.
L DurcanCancer Sciences Academic Unit and University of Southampton Clinical Trials Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
G C WishartFaculty of Medical Science, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge CB1 1PT, UK.
P PharoahDepartment of Oncology, Strangeways Research Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Worts Causeway, Cambridge CB1 8RN, UK.
POSH Steering Group
D EcclesCancer Sciences Academic Unit and University of Southampton Clinical Trials Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 15956Cancer Research UK 16561Cancer Research UK 19187Cancer Research UK A11699Cancer Research UK A7572Cancer Research UK C1275/A15956
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBreast cancer is the most common cancer in younger women (aged ⩽40 years) in the United Kingdom. PREDICT (http://www.predict.nhs.uk) is an online prognostic tool developed to help determine the best available treatment and outcome for early breast cancer. This study was conducted to establish how well PREDICT performs in estimating survival in a large cohort of younger women recruited to the UK POSH study.

methodsThe POSH cohort includes data from 3000 women aged ⩽40 years at breast cancer diagnosis. Study end points were overall and breast cancer-specific survival at 5, 8, and 10 years. Evaluation of PREDICT included model discrimination and comparison of the number of predicted versus observed events.

resultsPREDICT provided accurate long-term (8- and 10-year) survival estimates for younger women. Five-year estimates were less accurate, with the tool overestimating survival by 25% overall, and by 56% for patients with oestrogen receptor (ER)-positive tumours. PREDICT underestimated survival at 5 years among patients with ER-negative tumours.

conclusionsPREDICT is a useful tool for providing reliable long-term (10-year) survival estimates for younger patients. However, for more accurate short-term estimates, the model requires further calibration using more data from young onset cases. Short-term prediction may be most relevant for the increasing number of women considering risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalAdolescentAdultAge FactorsBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansPrognosisReceptors, EstrogenUnited KingdomYoung AdultReceptors, Estrogen

Identifiers

PMID25675148
PMCPMC4366898

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.