Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31639221›Full record

ArticleCancer2020

Metastatic breast cancer survival improvement restricted by regional disparity: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results and institutional analysis: 1990 to 2011.

Judith A Malmgren, Gregory S Calip, Mary K Atwood, Musa Mayer, Henry G Kaplan

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. EClinicalMedicine · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Judith A MalmgrenHealthStat Consulting, Inc., Seattle, Washington.ORCID 0000-0001-6939-8828
Gregory S CalipCenter for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomic Research, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.ORCID 0000-0002-7744-3518
Mary K AtwoodSwedish Cancer Institute, Seattle, Washington.
Musa MayerMetastatic Breast Cancer Alliance, New York, New York.
Henry G KaplanSwedish Cancer Institute, Seattle, Washington.

Funding

NCI NIH HHS HHSN261201300012I
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe extent of breast cancer outcome disparity can be measured by comparing Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) by region and with institutional cohort (IC) rates.

methodsPatients who were diagnosed with a first primary, de novo, stage IV breast cancer at ages 25 to 84 years from 1990 to 2011 were studied. The change in 5-year BCSS over time from 1990 to 2011 was compared using the SEER 9 registries (SEER 9) without the Seattle-Puget Sound (S-PS) region (n = 12,121), the S-PS region alone (n = 1931), and the S-PS region IC (n = 261). The IC BCSS endpoint was breast cancer death confirmed from chart and/or death certificate and cause-specific survival for SEER registries. BCSS was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Hazard ratios (HzR) were calculated using Cox proportional-hazards models.

resultsFor SEER 9 without the S-PS region, 5-year BCSS improved 7% (from 19% to 26%) over time, it improved 14% for the S-PS region (21% to 35%), and it improved 27% for the S-PS IC (29% to 56%). In the IC Cox proportional-hazards model, recent diagnosis year, chemotherapy, surgery, and age <70 years were associated with better survival. For SEER 9, additional significant factors were white race and positive hormone receptor status and S-PS region was associated with better survival (HzR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.84-0.90). In an adjusted model, hazard of BC death decreased in the most recent time period (2005-2011) by 28% in SEER 9 without S-PS, 43% in the S-PS region and 45% in the IC (HzR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.67-0.76], 0.57 [95% CI, 0.49-0.66], and 0.55 [95% CI, 0.39-0.78], respectively).

conclusionsOver 2 decades, the survival of patients with metastatic breast cancer improved nationally, but with regional survival disparity and differential improvement. To achieve equitable outcomes, access and treatment approaches will need to be identified and adopted.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overBreast NeoplasmsDeath CertificatesFemaleGeographyHealthcare DisparitiesHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingPrognosisProportional Hazards ModelsSEER ProgramSurvival Ratedifferential survivaldisease-specific survival (DSS)metastatic breast cancerregional disparity

Identifiers

PMID31639221
PMCPMC7004046

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.