SynthesisBMC cancer2019
Prognostic models for breast cancer: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 114 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
114 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Prediction models for different types of leukemia: a systematic review and critical appraisal.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2025Pooled it
- [Systemic treatment of breast cancer: professional guideline].Magyar onkologia · 2025Guideline
- Artificial intelligence in breast cancer survival prediction: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Pooled it
- Prognostic Tools for Older Women with Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Pooled it
- Development and internal-external validation of statistical and machine learning models for breast cancer prognostication: cohort study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2023Pooled it
- Carbonic anhydrase IX-related tumoral hypoxia predicts worse prognosis in breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Methodological guidance for the evaluation and updating of clinical prediction models: a systematic review.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Pooled it
- Methodological conduct of prognostic prediction models developed using machine learning in oncology: a systematic review.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Pooled it
- Systemic Treatment of Breast Cancer. 1st Central-Eastern European Professional Consensus Statement on Breast Cancer.Pathology oncology research : POR · 2022Pooled it
- Development and Validation of a Tool Integrating the 21-Gene Recurrence Score and Clinical-Pathological Features to Individualize Prognosis and Prediction of Chemotherapy Benefit in Early Breast Cancer.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2021Pooled it
- Predicting breast cancer 5-year survival using machine learning: A systematic review.PloS one · 2021Pooled it
- Development and testing of a random forest-based machine learning model for predicting events among breast cancer patients with a poor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy.European journal of medical research · 2023Trial
- Comparison of the Cox Proportional Hazards Model and Random Survival Forest Algorithm for Predicting Patient-Specific Survival Probabilities in Clinical Trial Data.Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift · 2026Article
- Current Advances of Treatments, Therapeutic Targets, Biomarkers, Novel Drugs, and Machine Learning for Hypopharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma.World journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery · 2026Review
- From prior knowledge to data-informed models: a review of Boolean network inference.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Review
- Article
- Deep Learning on Tumor Habitat Sub-regions vs. Whole-Tumor ROI: A Comparative Study of Fusion Strategies for Breast Cancer Molecular Subtype Prediction.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Vasculogenic mimicry and breast cancer prognosis: Insights into predictive model development.Oncology letters · 2026Article
- Article
- External validation of PREDICT Breast v3.1 for overall survival in international cohorts, including young and invasive lobular subgroups.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2026Article
54 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBreast cancer is the most common cancer in women worldwide, with a great diversity in outcomes among individual patients. The ability to accurately predict a breast cancer outcome is important to patients, physicians, researchers, and policy makers. Many models have been developed and tested in different settings. We systematically reviewed the prognostic models developed and/or validated for patients with breast cancer.
methodsWe conducted a systematic search in four electronic databases and some oncology websites, and a manual search in the bibliographies of the included studies. We identified original studies that were published prior to 1st January 2017, and presented the development and/or validation of models based mainly on clinico-pathological factors to predict mortality and/or recurrence in female breast cancer patients.
resultsFrom the 96 articles selected from 4095 citations found, we identified 58 models, which predicted mortality (n = 28), recurrence (n = 23), or both (n = 7). The most frequently used predictors were nodal status (n = 49), tumour size (n = 42), tumour grade (n = 29), age at diagnosis (n = 24), and oestrogen receptor status (n = 21). Models were developed in Europe (n = 25), Asia (n = 13), North America (n = 12), and Australia (n = 1) between 1982 and 2016. Models were validated in the development cohorts (n = 43) and/or independent populations (n = 17), by comparing the predicted outcomes with the observed outcomes (n = 55) and/or with the outcomes estimated by other models (n = 32), or the outcomes estimated by individual prognostic factors (n = 8). The most commonly used methods were: Cox proportional hazards regression for model development (n = 32); the absolute differences between the predicted and observed outcomes (n = 30) for calibration; and C-index/AUC (n = 44) for discrimination. Overall, the models performed well in the development cohorts but less accurately in some independent populations, particularly in patients with high risk and young and elderly patients. An exception is the Nottingham Prognostic Index, which retains its predicting ability in most independent populations.
conclusionsMany prognostic models have been developed for breast cancer, but only a few have been validated widely in different settings. Importantly, their performance was suboptimal in independent populations, particularly in patients with high risk and in young and elderly patients.
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.