Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30871490›Full record

SynthesisBMC cancer2019

Prognostic models for breast cancer: a systematic review.

Minh Tung Phung, Sandar Tin Tin, J Mark Elwood

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
114citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
–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

114 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

54 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors.

Minh Tung PhungEpidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Population Health, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand. tphu014@aucklanduni.ac.nz.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3573-4501
Sandar Tin TinEpidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Population Health, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand.
J Mark ElwoodEpidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Population Health, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Age of OnsetAsiaAustraliaBreast NeoplasmsEuropeFemaleHumansModels, TheoreticalNeoplasm GradingNorth AmericaPrognosisProportional Hazards ModelsReceptors, EstrogenTumor BurdenReceptors, EstrogenAdjuvant!OnlineBreast cancerMortalityNottingham prognostic indexPREDICTPredictive modelPrognosisPrognostic modelRecurrenceSurvival

Identifiers

PMID30871490
PMCPMC6419427

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.