Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27798652›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Effect of Age on Breast Cancer Patient Prognoses: A Population-Based Study Using the SEER 18 Database.

Hai-Long Chen, Mei-Qi Zhou, Wei Tian, Ke-Xin Meng, Hai-Fei He

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 110 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
110citing 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

110 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. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Social inequalities in survival among women with breast cancer in southeastern Brazil: a retrospective cohort study.Translational breast cancer research : a journal focusing on translational research in breast cancer · 2026
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

50 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors.

Hai-Long ChenDepartment of General Surgery, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, China.
Mei-Qi ZhouDepartment of Surgical Oncology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, China.
Wei TianDepartment of Surgical Oncology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, China.
Ke-Xin MengDepartment of General Surgery, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, China.
Hai-Fei HeDepartment of Surgical Oncology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAge is an important risk factor for breast cancer, but data regarding whether patient age at diagnosis is related to breast cancer survival are conflicting. This population-based study evaluated the effect of age on breast cancer prognosis and identified outcome-related factors. PATIENTS AND

methodsWe searched the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database and enrolled female primary non-metastatic cases. Patients were subdivided into seven groups, and analyses of the associations between age and overall survival (OS) and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) were carried out using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression model, respectively. We also assessed differences in survival among three specific age groups, using the ages of 30 and 50 years as cut-offs. Stratified analyses regarding race, histology, grade, stage and hormone receptor status were also carried out.

resultsA total of 133,057 female patients diagnosed with breast cancer from 2004 to 2008 were included in the current study (6.4% <40 years), Women aged 40 to 49 years and 60 to 69 years exhibited significantly better OS and BCSS, respectively (log-rank, p<0.001), than their counterparts in other groups. Middle-aged women exhibited distinctly better OS (log-rank, p<0.001) and BCSS (log-rank, p<0.001) than their counterparts in the other two age groups. Following adjustments for potential confounding factors, middle-age at breast cancer diagnosis was shown to be an independent predictor of favourable outcomes in terms of OS, but not BCSS (for OS, HR, 0.92; 95%CI, 0.87-0.98; p = 0.007; for BCSS, HR, 0.94; 95%CI, 0.80-1.01; p = 0.075, using the young group as reference). Stratified analysis showed that middle-age was significantly associated with increased survival, except among patients with stage III disease, and that elderly women faced worse prognoses than younger patients.

conclusionOur results indicate that younger breast cancer patients exhibit more aggressive disease than older patients. Middle-aged patients exhibit better OS and BCSS than young and elderly patients but exhibit BCSS rates similar to those of young patients after adjustments for confounders. Stratified analysis demonstrated that middle-aged patients exhibited better survival than young patients, with the exception of patients with stage III disease. An age of 60 years or more was a significant independent predictor of a poor prognosis.

Indexed as

Databases, FactualSEER ProgramAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsBreast NeoplasmsDemographyFemaleHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisNeoplasm StagingPrognosisProportional Hazards Models

Identifiers

PMID27798652
PMCPMC5087840

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.