ArticlePathology oncology research : POR2020
Comparison of Nottingham Prognostic Index, PREDICT and PrognosTILs in Triple Negative Breast Cancer -a Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Pathology oncology research : POR, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- 3.0 T multi-parametric MRI combined with clinical features improve malignancy prediction of BI-RADS 4 lesions and preoperative prediction of Nottingham Prognostic Index.European journal of radiology open · 2025Article
- A nomogram with Nottingham prognostic index for predicting locoregional recurrence in breast cancer patients.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Circular RNAs: New layer of complexity evading breast cancer heterogeneity.Non-coding RNA research · 2023Article
- The role of CPT1A as a biomarker of breast cancer progression: a bioinformatic approach.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Classification of Breast Cancer Nottingham Prognostic Index Using High-Dimensional Embedding and Residual Neural Network.Cancers · 2022Article
- Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) represents a heterogenous subtype of breast cancer with generally poor prognosis. The prediction of its prognosis remains essential to clinicians in their therapeutical decision-making process. The aim of our study was to compare the validity of three multivariable analysis derived prognostic systems, the Nottingham Prognostic Index (NPI), PREDICT and PrognosTILs (a prognosticator including tumor infiltrating lymphocytes, TILs) in a series of TNBCs. Patients operated on with TNBC at the Department of Surgery, Bács-Kiskun County Teaching Hospital, Kecskemét between 2005 and 2016 were included. Clinical and pathological parameters and follow-up data were collected from medical charts. TILs were assessed retrospectively, following international recommendations. Estimated survivals of PrognosTILs, PREDICT and NPI were recorded and compared with real outcomes. Altogether 136 patients were included in this retrospective study. In univariate Cox analysis, type of surgery, pT, pN, stage, NPI and type of adjuvant therapy were the significant prognostic variables. The multivariate Cox-regression strengthened that NPI is an independent predictor of overall and disease-free survivals in TNBCs. The NPI, PREDICT and PrognosTILs could be compared directly only in a ROC curve analysis: the sensitivities and specificities of these predicting systems are rather similar with area under the curve values falling between 0.7 and 0.8, and NPI having the highest values. Our findings reflect the diverse prognosis of TNBC and highlight the difficulties of predicting its outcome. None of the three multivariable prognosticators is inferior to the others, the NPI can reliably be used for TNBCs.
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.