Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27671991›Full record

ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2016

Prognostic models in male breast cancer.

Carmen C van der Pol, Miangela M Lacle, Arjen J Witkamp, Robert Kornegoor, Hui Miao, Christine Bouchardy, Inne Borel Rinkes, Elsken van der Wall, Helena M Verkooijen, Paul J van Diest

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Validation of IHC4 + C for male breast cancer.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2026
    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.

Carmen C van der PolDepartment of Surgical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands. c.c.vanderpol@umcutrecht.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-1045-2962
Miangela M LacleDepartment of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Arjen J WitkampDepartment of Surgical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Robert KornegoorDepartment of Pathology, Gelre Ziekenhuis, Apeldoorn, The Netherlands.
Hui MiaoSaw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Christine BouchardyGeneva Cancer Registry, Institute for Social and Preventive Medicine, Geneva University, Geneva, Switzerland.
Inne Borel RinkesDepartment of Surgical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Elsken van der WallDepartment of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Helena M VerkooijenDepartment of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Paul J van DiestDepartment of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeBreast cancer in men is uncommon; it accounts for 1 % of all patients with primary breast cancer. Its treatment is mostly extrapolated from its female counterpart. Accurate predictions are essential for adjuvant systemic treatment decision-making and informing patients. Several predictive models are available for female breast cancer (FBC) including the Morphometric Prognostic Index (MPI), Nottingham Prognostic Index (NPI), Adjuvant! Online and Predict. The aim of this study was to examine and compare the prognostic performance of these models for male breast cancer (MBC).

methodsThe population of this study consists of 166 MBC patients. The prognostic scores of the patients are categorized by good, (moderate) and poor, defined by the test itself (MPI and NPI) or based on tertiles (Adjuvant! Online and Predict). Survival according to prognostic score was compared by Kaplan-Meier analysis and differences were tested by logRank. The prognostic performances were evaluated with C-statistics. Calibration was done with the aim to estimate to what extent the survival rates predicted by Predict were similar to the observed survival rates.

resultsAll prediction models were capable of discriminating between good, moderate and poor survivors. P-values were highly significant. Comparison between the models using C-statistics (n = 88) showed equal performance of MPI (0.67), NPI (0.68), Adjuvant! Online (0.69) and Predict (0.69). Calibration of Predict showed overestimation for MBC patients.

conclusionIn conclusion, MPI, NPI, Adjuvant! and Predict prognostic models, originally developed and validated for FBC patients, also perform quite well for MBC patients.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBreast Neoplasms, MaleHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsPopulation SurveillancePrognosisSoftwareSurvival RateWeb BrowserAdjuvant! OnlineMale breast cancerNPIPredictPrognosisSurvival

Identifiers

PMID27671991
PMCPMC5065611

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.