Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29039120›Full record

ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2018

Differential presentation and survival of de novo and recurrent metastatic breast cancer over time: 1990-2010.

Judith A Malmgren, Musa Mayer, Mary K Atwood, Henry G Kaplan

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 86 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
86citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

86 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. 5th ESO-ESMO international consensus guidelines for advanced breast cancer (ABC 5).Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology · 2020
    Guideline
  5. 4th ESO-ESMO International Consensus Guidelines for Advanced Breast Cancer (ABC 4)†.Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology · 2018
    Guideline
  6. Pooled it
  7. Aggressive local therapy forOncology reports · 2023
    Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

26 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

4 authors.

Judith A MalmgrenHealthStat Consulting, Inc, 12025 9th Ave NW, Seattle, WA, 98177, USA. jmalmgren@seanet.com.
Musa MayerMetastatic Breast Cancer Alliance, New York, NY, USA.
Mary K AtwoodSwedish Cancer Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.
Henry G KaplanSwedish Cancer Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDifferences in de novo (dnMBC) and recurrent metastatic breast cancer (rMBC) presentation and survival over time have not been adequately described.

methodsA retrospective cohort study, 1990-2010, with follow up through 2015 of dnMBC patients (stage IV at diagnosis) and rMBC patients with subsequent distant metastatic recurrence (stage I-III initial diagnosis) [dnMBC = 247, rMBC = 911)]. Analysis included Chi squared tests of categorical variables, Kaplan-Meier survival estimates, and Cox proportional adjusted hazard ratios (HzR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Disease specific survival (DSS) was time from diagnosis or distant recurrence to BC death.

resultsOver time, 1990-1998, 1999-2004, and 2005-2010, dnMBC incidence was constant (3%) and rMBC incidence decreased [18% to 7% (p < 0.001)] with no change in dnMBC hormone receptor (HR) or her2-neu (HER2) status but a decrease in rMBC HER2-positive cases and increase in triple negative breast cancer (HR-negative/HER2-negative) (p = 0.049). Five-year dnMBC DSS was 44% vs. 21% for rMBC (p < 0.001). Five-year dnMBC DSS improved over time [28% to 55% (p = 0.008)] and rMBC worsened [23% to 13%, p = 0.065)]. Worse DSS was associated with HR-negative status (HzR = 1.63; 1.41, 1.89), rMBC (HzR = 1.88; 1.58, 2.23), older age (70 +) (HzR = 1.88; 1.58, 2.24), > 1 distant metastases (HzR 1.39; 1.20, 1.62), and visceral dominant disease (HzR 1.22; 1.05, 1.43). After 1998, HER2-positive disease was associated with better DSS (HzR = 0.72, 95% CI 0.56, 0.93).

conclusionsFactors associated with the widening survival gap and non-equivalence between dnMBC and rMBC and decreased rMBC incidence warrant further study.

Indexed as

PrognosisAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBreast NeoplasmsErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesFemaleHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateMiddle AgedNeoplasm MetastasisNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasm StagingReceptors, EstrogenReceptors, ProgesteroneTrastuzumabERBB2 protein, humanErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesReceptors, EstrogenReceptors, ProgesteroneTrastuzumabDe novoDistant relapseMetastasesMetastatic breast cancerOutcomesRecurrenceStage IVSurvival

Identifiers

PMID29039120
PMCPMC5790843

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.