ArticleCancer biology & therapy2020
Comparison of 21-gene assay and St.Gallen International Expert Consensus in the treatment decision for patients with early invasive breast cancers.
Article in Cancer biology & therapy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the impacts of 21-gene recurrence score (RS) and St. Gallen International Expert Consensus on treatment decision and prognosis of patients with invasive breast cancer. We retrospectively analyzed the therapy protocol and outcome of 134 cases based on age, body mass index (BMI), menopause, pathological types, tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) stages, percentage of estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2), Ki-67, molecular subtype, and tumor biomarkers. RS was calculated based on 21-gene assay following traditional (old RS cutoff) and updated (new RS cutoff) National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guideline. In addition, we also compared treatment protocol of NCCN guidelines with St. Gallen International Expert Consensus. The results showed that BMI, PR, Ki-67, and molecular subtype are critical for the evaluation of risk factors. Based on the new cutoff, low, middle, and high RS were 18%, 66%, and 16%, respectively. In contrast, based on the old cutoff, low, middle, and high RS were 60%, 29%, and 11%, respectively. The agreement rate of NCCN guidelines and St. Gallen International Expert Consensus for adjuvant treatment was 50. However, there is minimal agreement (0.151, 0.071) in kappa coefficient of old and new cutoff. This study revealed that the combination of NCCN guidelines and St. Gallen International Expert Consensus might improve the benefits of adjuvant treatment in patients with early invasive breast cancer.
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.