Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30670771›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2019

Invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breast had no difference in prognosis compared with invasive ductal carcinoma: a propensity-matched analysis.

Shuang Hao, Yuan-Yuan Zhao, Jin-Juan Peng, Fei Ren, Wen-Tao Yang, Ke-Da Yu, Zhi-Ming Shao

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. A rare case of invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breast.Przeglad menopauzalny = Menopause review · 2022
    Article
  20. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Shuang HaoDepartment of Breast Surgery, Cancer Center and Cancer Institute, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, 270 Dong-An Road, Shanghai, 200032, P. R. China.
Yuan-Yuan ZhaoDepartment of Breast Surgery, Cancer Center and Cancer Institute, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, 270 Dong-An Road, Shanghai, 200032, P. R. China.
Jin-Juan PengDepartment of Breast Surgery, the Fourth People's Hospital of Zhenjiang, Jiangsu, 212001, P. R. China.
Fei RenDepartment of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, 270 Dong-An Road, Shanghai, 200032, P. R. China.
Wen-Tao YangDepartment of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, 270 Dong-An Road, Shanghai, 200032, P. R. China.
Ke-Da YuDepartment of Breast Surgery, Cancer Center and Cancer Institute, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, 270 Dong-An Road, Shanghai, 200032, P. R. China. yukeda@fudan.edu.cn.
Zhi-Ming ShaoDepartment of Breast Surgery, Cancer Center and Cancer Institute, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, 270 Dong-An Road, Shanghai, 200032, P. R. China. zhimingshao@yahoo.com.
Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center · CNJiangsu University · CNShanghai Medical College of Fudan University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Invasive micropapillary carcinoma (IMPC) is a rare histopathological variant of breast carcinoma that is usually associated with poor clinical characteristics. Whether IMPC has worse prognosis than invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) is controversial. This retrospective study examined the prognostic difference between IMPC and IDC. We analysed 327 cases of IMPC patients and 4979 IDC cases who underwent primary resection in our institution between 2008 and 2012. Using propensity score matching, the two groups were matched at 1:1 by age, tumour size, nodal status, hormone status, and HER2 status. Differences in prognosis were assessed by Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox regression analysis. We established the IMPC group and identified 324 IDC patients by propensity score matching. The survival analysis indicated that IMPC patients had no significant reduced overall survival (p = 0.752) or disease-free survival (p = 0.578) compared with IDC patients. Multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed that IMPC was not an independent prognostic factor for disease-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.944; 95% confidential interval [CI], 0.601-1.481) or overall survival (HR = 0.727; 95% CI, 0.358-1.478). Survival analysis demonstrated no statistically significant difference between IMPC and IDC, indicating that proactive or radical clinical therapy is unnecessary.

Indexed as

AdultBreast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Ductal, BreastCarcinoma, PapillaryFemaleHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateMiddle AgedPrognosisPropensity ScoreProportional Hazards ModelsRetrospective StudiesSurvival Analysis

Identifiers

PMID30670771
PMCPMC6343026
OpenAlexW2914524714

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.