ArticleWorld journal of surgical oncology2016
Invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breast had poor clinical characteristics but showed no difference in prognosis compared with invasive ductal carcinoma.
Article in World journal of surgical oncology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Prognosis of invasive micropapillary carcinoma compared with invasive ductal carcinoma in breast: A meta-analysis of PSM studies.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2020Pooled it
- The prognosis of invasive micropapillary carcinoma compared with invasive ductal carcinoma in the breast: a meta-analysis.BMC cancer · 2017Pooled it
- Artificial Intelligence for Diagnostic and Prognostic Support in Breast Cancer: A Literature Overview.Cancers · 2026Review
- Survival outcomes of invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breast: a SEER population-based study.Gland surgery · 2026Article
- Invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breast and invasive breast carcinoma of no special type: a comparison of claudin proteins' expression and its impact on survival.Pathology oncology research : POR · 2024Article
- A prognostic nomogram based on risk assessment for invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breast after surgery.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- A rare case of invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breast.Przeglad menopauzalny = Menopause review · 2022Article
- Micropapillary Breast Carcinoma: From Molecular Pathogenesis to Prognosis.Breast cancer (Dove Medical Press) · 2022Review
- COX-2 expression in mammary invasive micropapillary carcinoma is associated with prognostic factors and acts as a potential therapeutic target in comparative oncology.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2022Article
- Cell polarity and cell adhesion associated gene expression differences between invasive micropapillary and no special type breast carcinomas and their prognostic significance.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- A Competing Nomogram to Predict Survival Outcomes in Invasive Micropapillary Breast Cancer.Journal of Cancer · 2019Article
- Article
- Is MPP a good prognostic factor in stage III lung adenocarcinoma with EGFR exon 19 mutation?Oncotarget · 2017Article
- Postoperative radiotherapy for invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breast: an analysis of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database.Cancer management and research · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIt is controversial for prognosis of invasive micropapillary carcinoma (IMPC) compared with invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) of the breast. To better understand the difference between IMPC and IDC prognoses, we conducted this retrospective study.
methodsData from 33 patients with IMPC were retrospectively reviewed, and the clinicopathologic characteristics and survival status were compared with those of 347 patients with IDC who were treated during the same period.
resultsThe IMPC cases were of larger tumor size, greater proportion of nodal involvement, and an increased incidence of lymphovascular invasion compared with IDC cases. The overall survival (OS), local relapse-free survival (LRFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and failure-free survival (FFS) rates were not significantly different between IMPC and IDC. The 3-year OS rate was 97 vs 94.2 % for the IMPC and IDC patients, respectively. The 3-year FFS rate was 87.9 vs 86.2 % for the IMPC and IDC patients, respectively. For IMPC patients, the 3-year LRFS rate was 93.9 % and in IDC patients was 89.0 %. The 3-year DMFS rates of IMPC patients was 90.9 % and IDC patients was 89 %.
conclusionsIMPC had poor clinical characteristics, but it showed no difference in OS, FFS, LRFS, and DMFS compare with IDC.
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.