ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2018
A retrospective prognostic evaluation analysis using the 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system for breast cancer.
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 29 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
29 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validation of the AJCC prognostic stage for HER2-positive breast cancer in the ShortHER trial.BMC medicine · 2019Trial
- Retrospective evaluation of the contribution of radiotherapy to survival in breast cancer treatment with propensity score based on stage and subgroup.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2024Article
- IAPP blocks anti-breast cancer function of CD8Frontiers in immunology · 2024Article
- Nomogram prediction of overall survival in breast cancer patients post-surgery: integrating SEER database and multi-center evidence from China.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Correlation between contrast-enhanced cone-beam breast computed tomography features and prognostic staging in breast cancer.The British journal of radiology · 2022Article
- Breast Cancer Subtypes and Prognosis: Answers to Subgroup Classification Questions, Identifying the Worst Subgroup in Our Single-Center Series.Breast cancer (Dove Medical Press) · 2022Article
- Nontherapeutic Risk Factors of Different Grouped Stage IIIC Breast Cancer Patients' Mortality: A Study of the US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Database.The breast journal · 2022Article
- The Will Rogers phenomenon, breast cancer and race.BMC cancer · 2021Article
- Validation of the revised 8th AJCC breast cancer clinical prognostic staging system: analysis of 5321 cases from a single institution.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2021Article
- Prognostic Factors and a Nomogram Predicting Survival in Patients with Breast Ductal Carcinoma in situ with Microinvasion: A Population-Based Study.Clinical epidemiology · 2021Article
- The comparison of the anatomic stage and pathological prognostic stage according to the AJCC 8th edition for the prognosis in Japanese breast cancer patients: data from a single institution.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2020Observational
- Study of long non-coding RNA highly upregulated in liver cancer (HULC) in breast cancer: A clinical &The Indian journal of medical research · 2020Article
- Article
- Evaluation of the 8th edition of the American joint committee on cancer's pathological staging system in prognosis assessment and treatment decision making for stage T1-2N1 breast cancer after mastectomy.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2020Article
- Tumour characteristics and survivorship in a cohort of breast cancer: the MCC-Spain study.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2020Article
- Prognostic validation and therapeutic decision-making of the AJCC eighth pathological prognostic staging for T3N0 breast cancer after mastectomy.Clinical and translational medicine · 2020Article
- Incorporation of biologic factors for the staging of de novo stage IV breast cancer.NPJ breast cancer · 2020Article
- Integration the biologic factors into the staging of breast cancer patients with ipsilateral supraclavicular lymph node metastasis.Journal of Cancer · 2020Article
- Prognostic and Predictive Value of the American Joint Committee on Cancer Pathological Prognostic Staging System in Nodal Micrometastatic Breast Cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Article
- Development and validation of a nomogram to predict the prognosis of patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the bladder.Bioscience reports · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeBreast cancer is a group of diseases with different intrinsic molecular subtypes. However, anatomic staging alone is insufficient to determine prognosis. The present study analyzed the prognostic value of the American Joint Committee for Cancer (AJCC) 8th edition cancer staging system.
methodsThis retrospective, single-center study included breast cancer cases diagnosed from January 1999 to December 2008. We restaged patients based on the 8th edition AJCC cancer staging system and analyzed the prognostic value of the anatomic and prognostic staged groups. Follow-up data including disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), and clinic-pathological data were collected to analyze the differences between the two staging subgroups.
resultsThe study enrolled 7458 breast cancer patients with a 98.7-month median follow-up. Both the 5-year DFS and OS were significantly different between the anatomic and prognostic staged groups. The 5-year OS according to disease subtype was as follows: hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative [HR(+)/HER2(-)], 90.9%; HR(+)/HER2(+), 84.7%; HR(-)/HER2(+), 81.1%; and HR(-)/HER2(-), 80.9%. According to the anatomic stage, the 5-year OS of patients with stage III HR(+)/HER2(-) disease was superior to that of patients with stage II HR(-)/HER2(-) disease (88.3 vs. 86.5%). Per the prognostic stage, both the 5-year DFS and OS rates of patients with stage II HR(-)/HER2(-) disease were higher than those of patients with stage III HR(+)/HER2(-) disease (90.1 and 94.3% vs. 79.1 and 88.9%).
conclusionsThe prognostic staging system is a refined version of the anatomic staging system and encourages a more personalized approach to breast cancer treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.