Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32778677›Full record

ArticleModern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc2021

Validation of the revised 8th AJCC breast cancer clinical prognostic staging system: analysis of 5321 cases from a single institution.

Rana Aldrees, Xiaoqing Gao, Kui Zhang, Gene P Siegal, Shi Wei

Abstract readValidation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. A simplified breast cancer prognostic score: comparison with the AJCC clinical prognostic staging system.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2021
    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.

Rana AldreesDepartment of Pathology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Xiaoqing GaoDepartment of Mathematical Sciences, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI, USA.
Kui ZhangDepartment of Mathematical Sciences, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2441-2064
Gene P SiegalDepartment of Pathology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3857-3368
Shi WeiDepartment of Pathology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA. swei@uabmc.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4417-593X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The anatomic stage groups (ASG) have been arguably the most powerful in predicting breast cancer (BC) outcomes. Recognizing the prognostic influence of histologic grade and receptor status, the 8th AJCC mandates their incorporation into the newly established prognostic stage groups (PSG). This staging scheme was subsequently revised to provide pathological and clinical prognostic stage tables (PPSG/CPSG) due to its incapability to categorize a significant subset of BCs, with the former only used for patients having surgical resection as the initial treatment, and the latter for all patients. Given the increasingly used neoadjuvant therapy, PPSG cannot be assigned in a significant proportion of higher staged BCs. In this study, we validated the CPSG in a cohort of 5321 BCs. Compared to ASG, the application of CPSG resulted in assigning 16.1% and 27.2% of cases to a higher or a lower stage group in non-stage IV BCs, respectively. The changes were seen mostly frequently in ASG IB, followed by IIIC, IIB, IIA, IIIA, IIIB, and IA. In 7.9% of cases, the assigned CPSG changed more than one stage group from the ASG. CPSG provided an improved overall discriminating power in predicting BC-specific survival when compared to ASG. Pairwise comparison using the Cox proportional hazard model demonstrated further advantages for CPSG as the latter showed a significant difference in all categories when compared to their proximate groups, except IIA vs. IB and IIIA vs. IIIB. In contrast, a significantly different hazard was only seen when comparing IIB vs. IIA, IIIA vs. IIB, and IV vs. IIIC for ASG. Thus, the revised 8th AJCC CPSG provided a superior overall staging scheme for predicting prognostic outcomes in BC patients receiving standard of care treatment. Further validation using the available data with larger populations and longer follow-up may be needed to refine and improve this table.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingPrognosisYoung Adult

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.