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.
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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Establishment of a new method for detection of TROP2-positive circulating tumor cells in breast cancer.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- Are All Prognostic Stage IB Breast Cancers Equivalent?Cancers · 2024Article
- Breast cancer histopathology, classification and clinical management: Current perspectives.Bioinformation · 2024Article
- The Value of the 8th Edition of American Joint Committee on Cancer Pathological Prognostic Staging on the Selection of Postmastectomy Radiotherapy for T1-2N1 Breast Cancer.Journal of oncology · 2022Article
- Role of PTEN, PI3K, and mTOR in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
- Tumour characteristics and survivorship in a cohort of breast cancer: the MCC-Spain study.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2020Article
- 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
- Assessment of the Prognostic Staging System of American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th Edition for Breast Cancer: Comparisons with the Conventional Anatomic Staging System.Journal of breast cancer · 2020Article
- Integration of Ki-67 index into AJCC 2018 staging provides additional prognostic information in breast tumours candidate for genomic profiling.British journal of cancer · 2020Article
- Validation of the pathological prognostic staging system proposed in the revised eighth edition of the AJCC staging manual in different molecular subtypes of breast cancer.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.