ArticleJournal of oncology2019
Imaging Biomarkers as Predictors for Breast Cancer Death.
Article in Journal of oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinicopathological characteristics and prognostic significance of casting-type calcifications in patients with invasive breast cancer presenting with microcalcification.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Does Diffusely Infiltrating Lobular Carcinoma of the Breast Arise from Epithelial-Mesenchymal Hybrid Cells?International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Ultrasound features for prediction of long-term outcomes of women with primary breast cancer <20 mm.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Precision Science on Incidence and Progression of Early-Detected Small Breast Invasive Cancers by Mammographic Features.Cancers · 2020Article
- Microcalcifications Drive Breast Cancer Occurrence and Development by Macrophage-Mediated Epithelial to Mesenchymal Transition.International journal of molecular sciences · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo differentiate the risk of breast cancer death in a longitudinal cohort using imaging biomarkers of tumor extent and biology, specifically, the mammographic appearance, basal phenotype, histologic tumor distribution, and conventional tumor attributes.
methodsUsing a prospective cohort study design, 498 invasive breast cancer patients diagnosed between 1996 and 1998 were used as the test cohort to assess the independent effects of the imaging biomarkers and other predictors on the risk of breast cancer death. External validation was performed with a cohort of 848 patients diagnosed between 2006 and 2010.
resultsMammographic tumor appearance was an independent predictor of risk of breast cancer death (P=0.0003) when conventional tumor attributes and treatment modalities were controlled. The casting type calcifications and architectural distortion were associated with 3.13-fold and 3.19-fold risks of breast cancer death, respectively. The basal phenotype independently conferred a 2.68-fold risk compared with nonbasal phenotype. The observed deaths did not differ significantly from expected deaths in the validation cohort. The application of imaging biomarkers together with other predictors classified twelve categories of risk for breast cancer death.
conclusionCombining imaging biomarkers such as the mammographic appearance of the tumor with the histopathologic distribution and basal phenotype, accurately predicted long-term risk of breast cancer death. The information may be relevant for determining the need for molecular testing, planning treatment, and determining the most appropriate clinical surveillance schedule for breast cancer patients.
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.