Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29137653›Full record

ArticleBreast cancer research : BCR2017

Prognostic value of PAM50 and risk of recurrence score in patients with early-stage breast cancer with long-term follow-up.

Hege O Ohnstad, Elin Borgen, Ragnhild S Falk, Tonje G Lien, Marit Aaserud, My Anh T Sveli, Jon A Kyte, Vessela N Kristensen, Gry A Geitvik, Ellen Schlichting and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Breast cancer research : BCR, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 73 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
73citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

73 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Clinicopathological and molecular predictors of [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2024
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. NMR in biomedicine · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Bioinformatic Approach to Identify Positive PrognosticInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. The impact of radiogenomics on breast cancer.American journal of cancer research · 2025
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

13 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

14 authors.

Hege O OhnstadDivision of Cancer Medicine, Department of Oncology, Oslo University Hospital, Postbox 4953 Nydalen, 0424, Oslo, Norway. Hege.Oma.Ohnstad@ous-hf.no.
Elin BorgenDivision of Laboratory Medicine, Department of Pathology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Ragnhild S FalkOslo Centre for Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Tonje G LienDepartment of Cancer Genetics, Institute of Cancer Research, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Marit AaserudDivision of Laboratory Medicine, Department of Pathology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
My Anh T SveliDivision of Laboratory Medicine, Department of Pathology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Jon A KyteDivision of Cancer Medicine, Department of Oncology, Oslo University Hospital, Postbox 4953 Nydalen, 0424, Oslo, Norway.
Vessela N KristensenDepartment of Cancer Genetics, Institute of Cancer Research, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Gry A GeitvikDepartment of Cancer Genetics, Institute of Cancer Research, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Ellen SchlichtingBreast and Endocrine Surgery Unit, Division of Cancer Medicine, Department of Oncology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Erik A WistInstitute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Therese SørlieDepartment of Cancer Genetics, Institute of Cancer Research, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Hege G RussnesDivision of Laboratory Medicine, Department of Pathology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Bjørn NaumeDivision of Cancer Medicine, Department of Oncology, Oslo University Hospital, Postbox 4953 Nydalen, 0424, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of this study was to investigate the prognostic value of the PAM50 intrinsic subtypes and risk of recurrence (ROR) score in patients with early breast cancer and long-term follow-up. A special focus was placed on hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) pN0 patients not treated with chemotherapy.

methodsPatients with early breast cancer (n = 653) enrolled in the observational Oslo1 study (1995-1998) were followed for distant recurrence and breast cancer death. Clinicopathological parameters were collected from hospital records. The primary tumors were analyzed using the Prosigna® PAM50 assay to determine the prognostic value of the intrinsic subtypes and ROR score in comparison with pathological characteristics. The primary endpoints were distant disease-free survival (DDFS) and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS).

resultsOf 653 tumors, 52.2% were classified as luminal A, 26.5% as luminal B, 10.6% as HER2-enriched, and 10.7% as basal-like. Among the HR+/HER2- patients (n = 476), 37.8% were categorized as low risk by ROR score, 22.7% as intermediate risk, and 39.5% as high risk. Median follow-up durations for BCSS and DDFS were 16.6 and 7.1 years, respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that intrinsic subtypes (all patients) and ROR risk classification (HR+/HER2- patients) yielded strong prognostic information. Among the HR+/HER2- pN0 patients with no adjuvant treatment (n = 231), 53.7% of patients had a low ROR, and their prognosis at 15 years was excellent (15-year BCSS 96.3%). Patients with intermediate risk had reduced survival compared with those with low risk (p = 0.005). In contrast, no difference in survival between the low- and intermediate-risk groups was seen for HR+/HER2- pN0 patients who received tamoxifen only. Ki-67 protein, grade, and ROR score were analyzed in the unselected, untreated pT1pN0 HR+/HER2- population (n = 171). In multivariate analysis, ROR score outperformed both Ki-67 and grade. Furthermore, 55% of patients who according to the PREDICT tool ( http://www.predict.nhs.uk/ ) would be considered chemotherapy candidates were ROR low risk (33%) or luminal A ROR intermediate risk (22%).

conclusionsThe PAM50 intrinsic subtype classification and ROR score improve classification of patients with breast cancer into prognostic groups, allowing for a more precise identification of future recurrence risk and providing an improved basis for adjuvant treatment decisions. Node-negative patients with low ROR scores had an excellent outcome at 15 years even in the absence of adjuvant therapy.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorAdultAgedBreast NeoplasmsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingNeoplasm MetastasisNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasm StagingPatient Outcome AssessmentPrognosisRisk AssessmentBiomarkers, TumorBreast cancerFollow-upPAM50Patient stratificationRisk of recurrence

Identifiers

PMID29137653
PMCPMC5686844

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.