Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29849016›Full record

ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2018

Comparison of Pathological Prognostic Stage and Anatomic Stage Groups According to the Updated Version of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) Breast Cancer Staging 8th Edition.

Kamuran Ibis, Selnur Ozkurt, Seden Kucucuk, Ekrem Yavuz, Pınar Saip

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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 · 2021
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

5 authors.

Kamuran IbisDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Institute of Oncology, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Selnur OzkurtBagcilar Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
Seden KucucukDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Institute of Oncology, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Ekrem YavuzDepartment of Pathology, Istanbul Medical Faculty, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Pınar SaipDepartment of Medical Oncology, Institute of Oncology, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND We compared pathological prognostic stage (PPS) with anatomic stage (AS) groups according to the updated version of breast cancer staging of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) 8th Edition. MATERIAL AND METHODS We evaluated 353 breast cancer patients initially treated with surgery. AS and PPS were performed by evaluating the pathological data of the patients according to the AJCC 8th Edition breast cancer updated version. Stages and survival rates between the 2 staging systems were evaluated and compared. Disease-free survival (DFS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) were calculated according to both staging systems using Kaplan-Meier test. After the PPS change was made in each AS group, 10-year DFS and 10-year DSS of the changed groups were compared using the chi-square test. RESULTS The median follow-up was 114 months and the median age was 48 years. In 192 (54.4%) patients the stage change. The most significant change was 1-level downstaging in 70 (22.4%) patients, and 2-levels downstaging in 78 (22.1%) patients. Five-year DFS, 10-year DFS, 5-year DSS rate, and 10-year DSS were 86.3%, 80.3%, 93.8%, and 84.1%, respectively. The PPS system was found to provide better prognostic information when the patients with AS IIB and IIIA groups were compared according to the PPS. CONCLUSIONS According to the updated version of the AJCC 8th Edition, half of our patients had stage change when they were evaluated according to AS and PPS system. PPS gives better information about prognosis than does AS.

Indexed as

AdultAgedBreast NeoplasmsDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingPrognosisSurvival RateTurkey

Identifiers

PMID29849016
PMCPMC6007150

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.