ArticleThe breast journal2019
Impact of biomarkers and genetic profiling on breast cancer prognostication: A comparative analysis of the 8th edition of breast cancer staging system.
Article in The breast journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Global Consultation on Cancer Staging: promoting consistent understanding and use.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2019Guideline
- Exploring the Genomic Landscape of Hepatobiliary Cancers to Establish a Novel Molecular Classification System.Cancers · 2024Article
- Review
- 'I Don't Like Uncertainty, I Like to Know': How and why uveal melanoma patients consent to life expectancy prognostication.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022Article
- Is accurate routine cancer prognostication psychologically harmful? 5-year outcomes of life expectancy prognostication in uveal melanoma survivors.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2022Article
- Validation of the revised 8th AJCC breast cancer clinical prognostic staging system: analysis of 5321 cases from a single institution.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging guidelines combine traditional TNM system with biomarkers to reflect our current understanding of tumor biology and targeted therapy. In this study, we investigated the impact of the TNM + Biomarkers staging system and the additive value of Oncotype Dx™ genomic profile recurrence score (RS) (TNM + Biomarkers+RS <11) for the staging of breast cancer (BC) using data from two tertiary referral cancer centers. Compared to TNM alone, the TNM + Biomarkers system changed the stage group in 32.7% of BCs (27% downstage, 5.7% upstage). Most (98.3%) of the downstaged BCs were estrogen receptor (ER)+/progesterone receptor (PR)+, whereas 78% of the upstaged BCs were ER-/PR-/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-. Compared to TNM + Biomarkers staging, the addition of genetic profile data (TNM + Biomarker+RS <11) downstaged only <1% BCs. Our analysis suggests that for T1-T2N0 ER+/HER2- BCs, Oncotype Dx™ RS <11 provides added value as a staging parameter only in a very small group of cases compared to TNM + Biomarkers alone.
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.