Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28592619›Full record

ArticleThe oncologist2017

Incorporating Tumor Characteristics to the American Joint Committee on Cancer Breast Cancer Staging System.

Mariana Chavez-MacGregor, Elizabeth A Mittendorf, Christina A Clarke, Daphne Y Lichtensztajn, Kelly K Hunt, Sharon H Giordano

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The oncologist, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

57 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 132 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Standardized Definitions for Efficacy End Points in Neoadjuvant Breast Cancer Clinical Trials: NeoSTEEP.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Novel Prognostic Staging System for Patients With De Novo Metastatic Breast Cancer.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2023
    Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mariana Chavez-MacGregorDepartment of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA Mchavez1@mdanderson.org.
Elizabeth A MittendorfDepartment of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Christina A ClarkeCancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, California, USA.
Daphne Y LichtensztajnCancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, California, USA.
Kelly K HuntDepartment of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Sharon H GiordanoDepartment of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USCancer Prevention Institute of California · US

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Fabien Delerue · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
CALIFORNIA'S PARTICIPATION IN THE NATIONAL CANCER PREVENTION AND CONTRO PROGRAMU58DP000807 · DP · PUBLIC HEALTH INSTITUTE · PI SNIPES, KURT P · 2007 to 2011
$22.5M
Defining critical aspects of environmental ultraviolet exposure in melanogenesisR01ES015552 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI COCKBURN, MYLES G · 2008 to 2012
$2.3M
Improving early detection of melanoma with skin self examinationR01CA121052 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI COCKBURN, MYLES G · 2007 to 2010
$1.2M
NCCDPHP CDC HHS U58 DP000807NCI NIH HHS HHSN261201000040CNCI NIH HHS HHSN261201000040INCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672NCI NIH HHS R01 CA121052NIEHS NIH HHS R01 ES015552
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) breast cancer staging system provides important prognostic information. The recently published eighth edition incorporates biological markers and recommends the use of a complex "prognostic stage." In this study, we assessed the relationship between stage, breast cancer subtype, grade, and outcome in a large population-based cohort and evaluated a risk score system incorporating tumor characteristic to the AJCC anatomic staging system. MATERIALS AND

methodsPatients diagnosed with primary breast cancer stage I-IV between 2005-2008 were identified in the California Cancer Registry. For patients with stage I-III disease, pathologic stage was recorded. For patients with stage IV disease, clinical stage was utilized. Five-year breast cancer specific survival (BCSS) and overall survival (OS) rates were determined for each potential tumor size-node involvement-metastases (TNM) combination according to breast cancer subtype. A risk score point-based system using grade, estrogen receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status was designed to complement the anatomic AJCC staging system. Survival probabilities between groups were compared using log-rank test. Cox proportional hazards models were used.

resultsAmong 43,938 patients, we observed differences in 5-year BCSS and OS for each TNM combination according to breast cancer subtype. The most favorable outcomes were seen for hormone receptor-positive tumors followed closely by HER2-positive tumors, with the worst outcomes observed for triple negative breast cancer. Our risk score system separated patients into four risk groups within each stage category (all

conclusionOur simple risk score system incorporates biological factors into the AJCC anatomic staging system, providing accurate prognostic information. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This study demonstrates that stage, but also breast cancer subtype and grade, define prognosis in a large population of breast cancer patients. It shows that a point-based risk score system that incorporates these biological factors provides refined stratification and information on prognosis, improving the anatomic American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system. In addition, the overall mortality and breast cancer specific mortality rates detailed here provide much-needed information about prognosis in the current era, refining the current AJCC staging.

Indexed as

PrognosisBreast NeoplasmsDisease-Free SurvivalErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesFemaleHumansNeoplasm MetastasisNeoplasm StagingProportional Hazards ModelsReceptors, EstrogenRisk FactorsSurvival RateUnited StatesERBB2 protein, humanErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesReceptors, EstrogenBreast cancerPrognosisStaging systemTumor characteristics

Identifiers

PMID28592619
PMCPMC5679819
OpenAlexW2622482306

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.