Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29963113›Full record

ArticleJournal of breast cancer2018

Prognostic Validation of the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th Staging System in 24,014 Korean Patients with Breast Cancer.

Isaac Kim, Hee Jun Choi, Jai Min Ryu, Se Kyung Lee, Jong Han Yu, Seok Won Kim, Seok Jin Nam, Jeong Eon Lee

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of breast cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. The clinical value ofQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2021
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Early SUVQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. 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
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Validation of the 8Aging · 2020
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Isaac KimDivision of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Hee Jun ChoiDivision of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Jai Min RyuDivision of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Se Kyung LeeDivision of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Jong Han YuDivision of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Seok Won KimDivision of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Seok Jin NamDivision of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Jeong Eon LeeDivision of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Samsung Medical Center · KRSungkyunkwan University · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) recently released the breast cancer staging system, 8th edition, which included additional four biologic factors. However, there has been no external validation of the prognostic value of the new stages with different population-based databases.

methodsTo validate the prognostic value of the new staging system in the Asian population, with a focus on Korean patients with breast cancer, we performed a retrospective study with data from the Korean Breast Cancer Society that included 24,014 patients with invasive ductal or lobular carcinoma who underwent surgery between January 2009 and January 2012 in Korea. The proportional differences were evaluated between the anatomic staging system (AJCC 7th edition) and the prognostic staging system (AJCC 8th edition, December 2017 published version). Comparisons of overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) with Kaplan-Meier graphs and hazard ratios were also performed.

resultsOur analysis included 24,014 patients (median age, 50 years; range, 20-91 years). Stage I, II, and III disease accounted for 47.6%, 43.5%, and 8.9%, respectively, of anatomic stages and 61.8%, 27.6%, and 10.8%, respectively, of clinical prognostic stages. A total of 6,272 cases (26.1%) were upstaged, 4,656 (19.4%) were downstaged, and 13,086 (54.5%) remained unchanged. OS and DFS decreased in the order from prognostic stages IA to IIIC but did not change among the anatomic stage groups.

conclusionOur data suggests that the prognostic staging system provides superior prognostic value to the anatomic staging system in Korean patients with breast cancer.

Indexed as

Breast neoplasmsNeoplasm stagingPrognosis

Identifiers

PMID29963113
PMCPMC6015977
OpenAlexW2809042795

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.