Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26783995›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2016

Validity of the online PREDICT tool in older patients with breast cancer: a population-based study.

N A de Glas, E Bastiaannet, C C Engels, A J M de Craen, H Putter, C J H van de Velde, A Hurria, G J Liefers, J E A Portielje

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of cancer, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

46 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Case Report: FatalCase reports in oncological medicine · 2025
    Article
  16. Review
  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

9 authors.

N A de GlasDepartment of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Centre, PO Box 9600, 2300RC Leiden, The Netherlands.
E BastiaannetDepartment of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Centre, PO Box 9600, 2300RC Leiden, The Netherlands.
C C EngelsDepartment of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Centre, PO Box 9600, 2300RC Leiden, The Netherlands.
A J M de CraenDepartment of Gerontology and Geriatrics, Leiden University Medical Centre, PO Box 9600, 2300RC Leiden, The Netherlands.
H PutterDepartment of Medical Statistics, Leiden University Medical Centre, PO Box 9600, 2300RC Leiden, The Netherlands.
C J H van de VeldeDepartment of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Centre, PO Box 9600, 2300RC Leiden, The Netherlands.
A HurriaCancer and Ageing Research Program, City of Hope, 1500 E Duarte Road, Duarte, CA 91010, USA.
G J LiefersDepartment of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Centre, PO Box 9600, 2300RC Leiden, The Netherlands.
J E A PortieljeDepartment of Medical Oncology, Haga Hospital The Hague, Leyweg 275, 2545 CH Den Haag, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPredicting breast cancer outcome in older patients is challenging, as it has been shown that the available tools are not accurate in older patients. The PREDICT tool may serve as an alternative tool, as it was developed in a cohort that included almost 1800 women aged 65 years or over. The aim of this study was to assess the validity of the online PREDICT tool in a population-based cohort of unselected older patients with breast cancer.

methodsPatients were included from the population-based FOCUS-cohort. Observed 5- and 10-year overall survival were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and compared with predicted outcomes. Calibration was tested by composing calibration plots and Poisson Regression. Discriminatory accuracy was assessed by composing receiver-operator-curves and corresponding c-indices.

resultsIn all 2012 included patients, observed and predicted overall survival differed by 1.7%, 95% confidence interval (CI)=-0.3-3.7, for 5-year overall survival, and 4.5%, 95% CI=2.3-6.6, for 10-year overall survival. Poisson regression showed that 5-year overall survival did not significantly differ from the ideal line (standardised mortality ratio (SMR)=1.07, 95% CI=0.98-1.16, P=0.133), but 10-year overall survival was significantly different from the perfect calibration (SMR=1.12, 95% CI=1.05-1.20, P=0.0004). The c-index for 5-year overall survival was 0.73, 95% CI=0.70-0.75, and 0.74, 95% CI=0.72-0.76, for 10-year overall survival.

conclusionsPREDICT can accurately predict 5-year overall survival in older patients with breast cancer. Ten-year predicted overall survival was, however, slightly overestimated.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsBreast NeoplasmsCohort StudiesFemaleHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateNetherlandsPoisson DistributionPredictive Value of TestsPrognosisReproducibility of ResultsRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID26783995
PMCPMC4815772

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.