Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28199370›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Extra-nodal extension is a significant prognostic factor in lymph node positive breast cancer.

Sura Aziz, Elisabeth Wik, Gøril Knutsvik, Tor Audun Klingen, Ying Chen, Benedicte Davidsen, Hans Aas, Turid Aas, Lars A Akslen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Observational
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.

Sura AzizCentre for Cancer Biomarkers CCBIO, Department of Clinical Medicine, Section for Pathology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Elisabeth WikCentre for Cancer Biomarkers CCBIO, Department of Clinical Medicine, Section for Pathology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Gøril KnutsvikCentre for Cancer Biomarkers CCBIO, Department of Clinical Medicine, Section for Pathology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Tor Audun KlingenCentre for Cancer Biomarkers CCBIO, Department of Clinical Medicine, Section for Pathology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Ying ChenCentre for Cancer Biomarkers CCBIO, Department of Clinical Medicine, Section for Pathology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Benedicte DavidsenDepartment of Surgery, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Hans AasDepartment of Surgery, Vestfold Hospital Trust, Tønsberg, Norway.
Turid AasDepartment of Surgery, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Lars A AkslenCentre for Cancer Biomarkers CCBIO, Department of Clinical Medicine, Section for Pathology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Presence of lymph node (LN) metastasis is a strong prognostic factor in breast cancer, whereas the importance of extra-nodal extension and other nodal tumor features have not yet been fully recognized. Here, we examined microscopic features of lymph node metastases and their prognostic value in a population-based cohort of node positive breast cancer (n = 218), as part of the prospective Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program NBCSP (1996-2009). Sections were reviewed for the largest metastatic tumor diameter (TD-MET), nodal afferent and efferent vascular invasion (AVI and EVI), extra-nodal extension (ENE), number of ENE foci, as well as circumferential (CD-ENE) and perpendicular (PD-ENE) diameter of extra-nodal growth. Number of positive lymph nodes, EVI, and PD-ENE were significantly increased with larger primary tumor (PT) diameter. Univariate survival analysis showed that several features of nodal metastases were associated with disease-free (DFS) or breast cancer specific survival (BCSS). Multivariate analysis demonstrated an independent prognostic value of PD-ENE (with 3 mm as cut-off value) in predicting DFS and BCSS, along with number of positive nodes and histologic grade of the primary tumor (for DFS: P = 0.01, P = 0.02, P = 0.01, respectively; for BCSS: P = 0.02, P = 0.008, P = 0.02, respectively). To conclude, the extent of ENE by its perpendicular diameter was independently prognostic and should be considered in line with nodal tumor burden in treatment decisions of node positive breast cancer.

Indexed as

AgedBreast NeoplasmsDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateLymphatic MetastasisLymph NodesMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisNeoplasm GradingPrognosisProportional Hazards ModelsProspective Studies

Identifiers

PMID28199370
PMCPMC5310784

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.