Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32356254›Full record

ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2020

Tumour characteristics and survivorship in a cohort of breast cancer: the MCC-Spain study.

Inés Gómez-Acebo, Trinidad Dierssen-Sotos, Camilo Palazuelos-Calderón, Beatriz Pérez-Gómez, Pilar Amiano, Marcela Guevara, Antonio J Molina, Laia Domingo, María Fernández-Ortiz, Victor Moreno and 15 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Dietary Constituents: Relationship with Breast Cancer Prognostic (MCC-SPAIN Follow-Up).International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

25 authors at 14 institutions in 2 countries.

Inés Gómez-AceboConsortium for Biomedical Research in Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública, CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain. ines.gomez@unican.es.
Trinidad Dierssen-SotosConsortium for Biomedical Research in Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública, CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain.
Camilo Palazuelos-CalderónUniversity of Cantabria - IDIVAL, Santander, Spain.
Beatriz Pérez-GómezConsortium for Biomedical Research in Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública, CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain.
Pilar AmianoPublic Health Division of Gipuzkoa, BioDonostia Research Institute, San Sebastian, Spain.
Marcela GuevaraConsortium for Biomedical Research in Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública, CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain.
Antonio J MolinaInstituto de Biomedicina (IBIOMED), Universidad de León, León, Spain.
Laia DomingoDepartment of Epidemiology and Evaluation, IMIM (Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute), Passeig Marítim, 25-29, 08003, Barcelona, Spain.
María Fernández-OrtizUniversity of Cantabria - IDIVAL, Santander, Spain.
Victor MorenoConsortium for Biomedical Research in Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública, CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain.
Juan AlguacilConsortium for Biomedical Research in Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública, CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain.
Guillermo Fernández-TardónInstituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Principado de Asturias-ISPA, UNIOVI and CIBERESP, Oviedo, Spain.
Josefa IbáñezCancer and Public Health Area, FISABIO - Public Health, Valencia, Spain.
Rafael Marcos-GrageraConsortium for Biomedical Research in Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública, CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain.
Marian Diaz-SantosCentro de Investigación en Recursos Naturales, Salud y Medio Ambiente (RENSMA), Universidad de Huelva, Huelva, Spain.
M Henar AlonsoConsortium for Biomedical Research in Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública, CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain.
Jessica Alonso-MoleroUniversity of Cantabria - IDIVAL, Santander, Spain.
Gemma Castaño-VinyalsConsortium for Biomedical Research in Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública, CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain.
Andrés García PalomoServicio de Oncología, Complejo Asistencial Universitario de León, León, Spain.
Eva ArdanazConsortium for Biomedical Research in Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública, CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain.
Amaia MolinuevoPublic Health Division of Gipuzkoa, BioDonostia Research Institute, San Sebastian, Spain.
Nuria AragonésConsortium for Biomedical Research in Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública, CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain.
Manolis KogevinasConsortium for Biomedical Research in Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública, CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain.
Marina PollánConsortium for Biomedical Research in Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública, CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain.
Javier LlorcaConsortium for Biomedical Research in Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública, CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain.
Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Epidemiología y Salud Pública · ESBarcelona Institute for Global Health · ESBiogipuzkoa Health Research Institute · ESInstitut Català d'Oncologia · ESInstituto de Investigación Marqués de Valdecilla · ESUniversidad de Cantabria · ESComplejo Asistencial Universitario de Palencia · ESFundación para el Fomento de la Investigación Sanitaria y Biomédica de la Comunitat Valenciana · ESHospital del Mar Research Institute · ESInstituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Principado de Asturias · ESInstituto de Salud Carlos III · ESPrevention Institute · USUniversidad de Huelva · ESUniversidad de León · ES

Funding

Instituto de Salud Carlos III and PI15/00069Instituto de Salud Carlos III grants PI08/1770Instituto de Salud Carlos III PI08/0533Instituto de Salud Carlos III PI08/1359Instituto de Salud Carlos III PI09/00773Instituto de Salud Carlos III PI09/01286Instituto de Salud Carlos III PI09/01662Instituto de Salud Carlos III PI09/01903Instituto de Salud Carlos III PI09/02078Instituto de Salud Carlos III PI11/00226Instituto de Salud Carlos III PI11/01403Instituto de Salud Carlos III PI11/01810Instituto de Salud Carlos III PI11/01889Instituto de Salud Carlos III PI11/02213Instituto de Salud Carlos III PI12/00150Instituto de Salud Carlos III PI12/00265Instituto de Salud Carlos III PI12/00488Instituto de Salud Carlos III PI12/00715Instituto de Salud Carlos III PI12/01270Instituto de Salud Carlos III PI14/00613Instituto de Salud Carlos III PI14/01219
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe objective of this study is to analyse the relative survival with breast cancer in women diagnosed after new treatments were generalised and to ascertain the current effect that tumour characteristics such as grade, stage or subtype have on survival as well as the new AJCC-pathological prognostic score.

methodsThe breast cancer MCC-Spain follow-up study is a prospective cohort study of 1685 incident breast cancer cases. Women between 20 and 85 years old were recruited between the years 2008 and 2013 in 18 hospitals located in 10 Spanish provinces and they have been followed until 2017/2018. Relative survival was estimated after 3, 5 and 8 years of follow-up using Ederer II method. In addition, Weibull regression adjusted by age, hospital, grade and stage was used to investigate prognosis factors.

resultsAmong components of TNM staging system, tumour size greater than 50 mm (i.e. T3 or T4) more than doubled the risk of dying, while N3 nodal involvement and presence of metastasis had a huge effect on mortality. The AJCC pathological prognostic score strongly correlated with survival; thus, hazard ratios increased as the score rose, being 2.31, 4.00, 4.94, 7.92, 2.26, 14.9 and 58.9 for scores IB, IIA, IIB, IIIA, IIIB, IIIC and IV, respectively.

conclusionBoth TNM staging and histological/molecular biomarkers are associated with overall survival in Spanish women with breast cancer; when both are combined in the AJCC pathological prognosis score, the prognostic value improved with risk indices that increased rapidly as the pathological prognosis score increased.

Indexed as

SurvivorshipAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBreast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Ductal, BreastCarcinoma, LobularCase-Control StudiesCombined Modality TherapyErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMiddle AgedPrognosisProspective StudiesERBB2 protein, humanErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesReceptors, EstrogenReceptors, ProgesteroneBreast cancerCohortEpidemiologyMCC-spainRelative survival

Identifiers

PMID32356254
PMCPMC7220874
OpenAlexW3021089505

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.