ArticleBMC cancer2016
Tumor characteristics and prognosis in familial breast cancer.
Article in BMC cancer, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Prevalence of BRCA mutations among hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer patients in Arab countries: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC cancer · 2019Pooled it
- A Comparative Species Framework to Identify Candidate Salivary miRNAs Associated with Breast Cancer Risk.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- The search for a TNBC vaccine: the guardian vaccine.Cancer biology & therapy · 2025Review
- The Transcriptomic Profile Underlying Somatic MonoallelicDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- BRCA1/2 mutations and outcomes among Middle Eastern patients with early-onset breast cancer in Oman.The oncologist · 2024Article
- The Tumour Microenvironment and Epigenetic Regulation inCancers · 2024Review
- Breast cancer genomic analyses reveal genes, mutations, and signaling networks.Functional & integrative genomics · 2024Article
- A predictive model using MRI and clinicopathologic features for breast cancer recurrence in young women treated with upfront surgery.European radiology · 2024Article
- Analysis of Breast Cancer Family History, Estrogen Receptor Status, and Breast Cancer Outcomes in Sweden.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Harnessing Epigenetics for Breast Cancer Therapy: The Role of DNA Methylation, Histone Modifications, and MicroRNA.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Article
- Breast Cancer Care Timeliness Framework: A Quality Framework for Cancer Control.JCO global oncology · 2022Article
- Familial non-medullary thyroid cancer: a critical review.Journal of endocrinological investigation · 2021Review
- Management of patients with BRCA mutation from the point of view of a breast surgeon.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2021Review
- Familial Breast Cancer: Disease Related Gene Mutations and Screening Strategies for Chinese Population.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Review
- Identification of a novel truncating mutation in PALB2 gene by a multigene sequencing panel for mutational screening of breast cancer risk-associated and related genes.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundApproximately 5-10% of breast cancers are hereditary and their biology and prognosis appear to differ from those of sporadic breast cancers. In this study we compared the biological features and clinical characteristics of non metastatic breast cancer in patients with BRCA mutations versus patients with a family history suggesting hereditary breast cancer but without BRCA mutations (BRCA wild type) versus patients with sporadic disease, and correlated these findings with clinical outcome.
methodsWe retrieved the clinical and biological data of 33 BRCA-positive, 66 BRCA-wild type and 1826 sporadic breast cancer patients contained in a single institution clinical database between 1980 and 2012. Specifically, we recorded age, tumor size, nodal status, treatment type, pattern of relapse, second primary incidence, outcome (disease-free survival and overall survival), and biological features (estrogen receptor [ER], progesterone receptor [PgR], tumor grade, proliferation and c-erbB2 status). Median follow-up was 70 months.
resultsBRCA-positive patients were significantly younger than sporadic breast cancer patients, and less likely to be ER-, PgR- or c-erbB2-positive than women with BRCA-wild type or sporadic breast cancer. Tumor size and grade, nodal status and proliferation did not differ among the three groups. Rates of radical mastectomy were 58, 42 and 37%, and those of conservative surgery were 42, 58 and 63% in women with BRCA-positive, BRCA-wild type and sporadic breast cancer (p = 0.03), respectively. The incidence of contralateral breast cancer was 12, 14 and 0% (p <0.0001) and the incidence of second primary tumors (non breast) was 9, 1 and 2% (p <0.0001) in BRCA-positive, BRCA-wild type and sporadic breast cancer, respectively. Median disease-free survival in years was 29 in BRCA-wild type, 19 in BRCA-positive and 14 in sporadic breast cancer patients (log-rank = 0.007). Median overall survival in years was not reached for BRCA-wild type, 19 for BRCA-positive and 13 for sporadic breast cancer patients (log-rank <0.0001). At multivariate analyses only BRCA-wild type status was related to a significant improvement in overall survival versus the sporadic breast cancer group (HR = 0,51; 95% CI (0,28-0,93) p = 0.028).
conclusionsThe biology and outcome of breast cancer differ between patients with BRCA mutations, patients with a family history but no BRCA mutations and patients with sporadic breast cancer.
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.