Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29291744›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of surgical oncology2018

Prognostic parameters of luminal A and luminal B intrinsic breast cancer subtypes of Pakistani patients.

Atif Ali Hashmi, Saher Aijaz, Saadia Mehmood Khan, Raeesa Mahboob, Muhammad Irfan, Narisa Iftikhar Zafar, Mariam Nisar, Maham Siddiqui, Muhammad Muzzammil Edhi, Naveen Faridi and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of surgical oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Clinically SignificantCancers · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. G2/M Checkpoint Modulation: Insights from miRNA Profiles in FAM and Breast Cancer.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2024
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

11 authors.

Atif Ali HashmiLiaquat National Hospital and Medical College, Karachi, Pakistan.
Saher AijazShaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Institute of Science and Technology, Karachi, Pakistan.
Saadia Mehmood KhanLiaquat National Hospital and Medical College, Karachi, Pakistan.
Raeesa MahboobLiaquat National Hospital and Medical College, Karachi, Pakistan.
Muhammad IrfanLiaquat National Hospital and Medical College, Karachi, Pakistan.
Narisa Iftikhar ZafarLiaquat National Hospital and Medical College, Karachi, Pakistan.
Mariam NisarLiaquat National Hospital and Medical College, Karachi, Pakistan.
Maham SiddiquiAga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan.
Muhammad Muzzammil EdhiDepartment of Surgery, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA.
Naveen FaridiDepartment of Pathology, Liaquat National Hospital and Medical College, Karachi, Pakistan.
Amir KhanDepartment of Medicine, Kandahar University, Kandahar, Afghanistan. dramirkhan04@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8763-7690

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrognosis of breast cancer and success of therapeutic interventions largely rely on the clinico-pathologic and biological characteristics of the tumor and vary due to the heterogeneous nature of breast cancers. The aim of this study was to determine the frequency and prognostic parameters of luminal breast cancers in our population to devise targeted and personalized therapeutic regimens tailored to the needs of the loco-regional population.

methodsA retrospective cross-sectional study including 1951 cases of primary breast cancer treated at Liaquat National Hospital Karachi was conducted during the year 2011-2016. The clinico-pathologic characteristics were observed and semiquantitative immunohistochemical analysis was performed to study the luminal subtypes A and B. The cross-tabulated statistics of the observed characteristics were performed between the two subtypes. The significance level of each characteristic was estimated utilizing the chi-square test.

resultsLuminal cancers comprised 62.7% of the total number of cases diagnosed with breast cancers in the study period. Out of these 1224 cases of luminal cancers, 845 cases (69%) were luminal B, while 379 (31%) cases were of luminal A. Luminal B cancers were significantly more common in younger age groups as compared to luminal A cancers. Comparison of the two subtypes of luminal breast cancers revealed significant differences. Luminal B cancers were associated with higher grade (26% grade III in luminal B compared to 8% in luminal A), micropapillary histology, and high frequency of nodal metastasis (54 vs. 43%).

conclusionsLuminal B comprised the most frequent subtype of breast cancer in our study and they were found more constantly in a younger age group. Moreover, they were associated with adverse clinico-histologic parameters like higher grade and nodal metastasis. Therefore, we suggest that, despite lack of widespread availability of molecular studies in our setup, IHC-based typing should be done in every case of breast cancer to individualize therapy.

Indexed as

AdultAgedBreast NeoplasmsCross-Sectional StudiesErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansLymphatic MetastasisMiddle AgedPakistanPrognosisReceptors, EstrogenReceptors, ProgesteroneRetrospective StudiesErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesReceptors, EstrogenReceptors, ProgesteroneBreast cancerERHer2neuLuminal ALuminal BPR

Identifiers

PMID29291744
PMCPMC5749004

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.