Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32139756›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2020

Influence of Competing Risks on Estimates of Recurrence Risk and Breast Cancer-specific Mortality in Analyses of the Early Breast Cancer Trialists Collaborative Group.

Ramy R Saleh, Michelle B Nadler, Alexandra Desnoyers, Danielle L Rodin, Husam Abdel-Qadir, Eitan Amir

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 42% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ramy R SalehDivision of Medical Oncology & Hematology, Department of Medicine, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Michelle B NadlerDivision of Medical Oncology & Hematology, Department of Medicine, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Alexandra DesnoyersDivision of Medical Oncology & Hematology, Department of Medicine, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Danielle L RodinDivision of Radiation Oncology, Department of Medicine, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Husam Abdel-QadirDepartment of Medicine, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Eitan AmirDivision of Medical Oncology & Hematology, Department of Medicine, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. eitan.amir@uhn.ca.
Princess Margaret Cancer Centre · CAUniversity of Toronto · CAInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Early-stage breast cancer (BC) is a curable disease with many patients dying of causes other than BC. The influence of non-BC death and other competing risks on the interpretation of Kaplan-Meier (KM)-based analyses for BC-specific outcomes are unknown. We searched the Oxford University website to identify all meta-analyses published by the Early Breast Cancer Trialists Collaborative Group (EBCTCG) between 2005 and 2018. The potential influence of competing risks was estimated using a validated multivariable linear model that predicts the difference between KM and cumulative incidence function (CIF) on estimates of BC-specific outcomes. The initial search identified 14 EBCTCG papers, 10 (71%) reported data on BC and competing events. Eight (80%) had a relative difference between KM and the competing risk adjusted estimates exceeding 10%. The median relative difference was 28.4% for local-recurrence; 16.8% for distant-recurrence, and 6.7% for BC-specific mortality. There was a 18.9% relative difference between KM and CIF adjusted analyses beyond 10 years. The use of KM-based methods when competing risks are present biases risk estimates in studies of early BC especially for uncommon outcomes such as local recurrence. The use of CIF to calculate BC-specific outcomes may be preferable in this setting.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalBreast NeoplasmsCanadaFemaleHumansIncidenceNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPrognosisRisk AssessmentSurvival Rate

Identifiers

PMID32139756
PMCPMC7058037
OpenAlexW3009148510

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.