Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32753951›Full record

ArticleCancer management and research2020

Clinical Outcomes of N3 Breast Cancer: A Real-World Study of a Single Institution and the US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Database.

Xiang Ai, Xin Liao, Junyan Li, Peng Tang, Jun Jiang

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer management and research, 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
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 47% 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Clinical features and outcomes of pediatric intracranial gliomas: results from single center's 226 cases and corroborated with SEER database.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2023
    Article
  5. Review
  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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Xiang AiBreast Disease Center, Southwest Hospital, The Army Military Medical University, Chongqing 400038, People's Republic of China.ORCID 0000-0002-8866-1342
Xin LiaoBreast Disease Center, Southwest Hospital, The Army Military Medical University, Chongqing 400038, People's Republic of China.
Junyan LiDepartment of Breast Surgery, People's Hospital of DeYang City, Deyang 618000, People's Republic of China.
Peng TangBreast Disease Center, Southwest Hospital, The Army Military Medical University, Chongqing 400038, People's Republic of China.
Jun JiangBreast Disease Center, Southwest Hospital, The Army Military Medical University, Chongqing 400038, People's Republic of China.
Southwest Hospital · CNFuyang City People's Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough stage IIIC (any TN3M0) breast cancer is known to have a dismal prognosis, the clinical outcome of current standard management and the prognostic differences between N3a, N3b and N3c remain to be further investigated. MATERIAL AND

methodsData from our center on pathologic N3 (pN3) (n=284) breast cancer and the US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database on clinical N3 (cN3) (n=15,291) and M1 (n=23,623) breast cancer between January 2004 and December 2015 were systematically analyzed for clinicopathological characteristics and survival outcomes.

resultsIn our institution, patients with pN3c had the worst survival, with 5-year OS and DFS rates of 52.4% and 41.5%, respectively. Patients with pN3b had a relatively good prognosis, with a 5-year OS rate of 75.3% vs 63.9% for the pN3a group (p=0.045). For DFS, the 5-year survival rate was 63.1% in the pN3b group compared with 40.3% in the pN3a group (p=0.030). In the US SEER database, patients with cN3c had the worst survival in the cN3 group, but the prognosis of cN3c was much better than that of M1. Similarly, patients with cN3b had a better prognosis compared with patients in other groups, with a 5-year OS rate of 68.9% vs 61.9% for the cN3a group (p<0.001) and a 5-year BCSS rate of 73.4% vs 67.1% for the cN3a group (p<0.001).

conclusionBreast cancer patients with N3c had the worst clinical outcomes, while the prognosis of N3b patients was better than that of N3a patients.

Indexed as

breast cancerN3stage IIICsurvival

Identifiers

PMID32753951
PMCPMC7342555
OpenAlexW3038456975

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.