ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2019
Impact of the 21-gene recurrence score assay on chemotherapy decision making and outcomes for breast cancer patients with four or more positive lymph nodes.
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 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.
- Oncotype DX: Clinical Utility, Evidence, and Future Trends in Personalized Breast Cancer Management.International journal of cancer · 2026Review
- Methods Applied to Assess Real-World Effectiveness of Drugs: A Scoping Review.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2026Article
- Evolving incidence patterns for locally advanced operable breast cancer by receptor status: SEER 2010-2021.NPJ breast cancer · 2025Article
- The impact of age and nodal status on variations in oncotype DX testing and adjuvant treatment.NPJ breast cancer · 2022Article
- The 21-gene recurrence score in node-positive, hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer: a cautionary tale from an NCDB analysis.Breast cancer research and treatment · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo assess the impact of the 21-gene recurrence score (RS) on chemotherapy decision making and survival outcomes for breast cancer patients with >4 positive lymph nodes.
methodsPatients with non-metastatic estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer with >4 positive lymph nodes diagnosed between 2004 and 2013 were identified using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. The relationships between the 21-gene RS value and survival outcomes, chemotherapy decision-making, and chemotherapy benefit were analyzed.
resultsA total of 410 patients were identified, including 191 (46.6%), 164 (40.0%), and 55 (13.4%) in the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk RS groups, respectively. The 21-gene RS assay results were independently related to chemotherapy receipt. A total of 59.0%, 68.0%, and 78.0% of patients received chemotherapy in the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk RS groups, respectively. The 21-gene RS was an independent indicator of breast cancer specific survival (BCSS) and overall survival (OS). Intermediate-risk [BCSS: hazards ratio (HR), 2.832, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.160-6.910, P=0.022; OS: HR, 3.704, 95% CI: 1.750-7.836, P=0.001] and high-risk RS (BCSS: HR, 6.440, 95% CI: 2.597-15.974, P<0.001; OS: HR, 5.053, 95% CI: 2.199-11.608, P<0.001) cohorts had significantly lower survival outcomes compared to low-risk RS cohort. The 5-year BCSS were 92.7%, 88.3%, and 70.7% in patients in the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk RS cohorts, respectively (P<0.001), and the 5-year OS were 92.1%, 80.6%, and 66.6%, respectively (P<0.001).
conclusionsThe 21-gene RS is an independent predictor of chemotherapy receipt and survival outcomes for breast cancer patients with > 4 positive lymph nodes.
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.