Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31143307›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine research2019

The Effect of the New Eighth Edition Breast Cancer Staging System on 100 Consecutive Patients.

Ashley Biswal, Jacqueline Erler, Omar Qari, Arthur A Topilow, Varsha Gupta, Mohammad A Hossain, Arif Asif, Brian Erler, Denise Johnson Miller

Open access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 54% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. 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

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ashley BiswalOffice of Research Administration, Jersey Shore University Medical Center, 19 Davis Avenue, Neptune, NJ, USA.
Jacqueline ErlerOffice of Research Administration, Jersey Shore University Medical Center, 19 Davis Avenue, Neptune, NJ, USA.
Omar QariOffice of Research Administration, Jersey Shore University Medical Center, 19 Davis Avenue, Neptune, NJ, USA.
Arthur A TopilowOffice of Research Administration, Jersey Shore University Medical Center, 19 Davis Avenue, Neptune, NJ, USA.
Varsha GuptaDepartment of Medicine, Jersey Shore University Medical Center, 1945 Corlies Avenue, Neptune, NJ, USA.
Mohammad A HossainDepartment of Medicine, Jersey Shore University Medical Center, 1945 Corlies Avenue, Neptune, NJ, USA.
Arif AsifDepartment of Medicine, Jersey Shore University Medical Center, 1945 Corlies Avenue, Neptune, NJ, USA.
Brian ErlerDepartment of Pathology, Jersey Shore University Medical Center, 1945 Corlies Avenue, Neptune, NJ, USA.
Denise Johnson MillerDepartment of Surgery, Jersey Shore University Medical Center, 1945 Corlies Avenue, Neptune, NJ, USA.
Jersey Shore University Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn October 2016 the American Joint Committee on Cancer published the early eighth edition breast cancer prognostic staging system, incorporating biomarkers into previously accepted staging. The updated and current eighth edition became effective nationwide in January 2018 after a large update to its staging guidelines. This study's aim was to compare patients' anatomic seventh edition (anatomic), early eighth (pre-update, prognostic), and current eighth (post-update, prognostic) pathological stages and to assess the utility of recent inclusions to staging criteria. Additionally, we observed how the aforementioned stage changes aligned with breast cancer histologic subtypes.

methodsAn Institutional Review Board (IRB)-approved retrospective chart review was performed. Inclusion criteria included female patients between the ages of 35 to 95 years with a diagnosis of invasive ductal or lobular carcinoma of the breast (n = 100) at three Hackensack Meridian Health hospitals. The study evaluated any trends in patients' stage changes between the seventh edition, early eighth edition, and current eighth edition breast cancer staging guidelines. Breast cancer restaging was performed using a novel staging tool on Microsoft Excel.

resultsOnly 26% of patients' stages changed when comparing the seventh edition stage vs. current eighth edition prognostic staging, most of which were downstaged. When comparing the seventh with early eighth edition prognostic staging, 38% of the patients' stages changed, with a majority of them being upstaged. Lastly, 95% of total stage changes were downstages between the early eighth and current eighth edition staging guidelines.

conclusionsWhen comparing the seventh edition vs. current eighth edition staging, few patients (especially those with early stage cancer) underwent a stage change. However, there were significant changes in stage when comparing early eighth vs. current eighth stages. Considering these changes were mostly downstages and many patients reverted to their original seventh edition stage, the current eighth edition is based on a personalized, less radical staging approach, one that is more synonymous with original seventh edition staging.

Indexed as

AJCCBreast cancerClinical biomarkersHistologic subtypesPrognostic staging

Identifiers

PMID31143307
PMCPMC6522240
OpenAlexW2944809178

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.