ArticlePloS one2020
Establishing a predicted model to evaluate prognosis for initially diagnosed metastatic Her2-positive breast cancer patients and exploring the benefit from local surgery.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prognostic model for pulmonary metastasis in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer: a population-based study.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2026Article
- Development of a prognostic risk stratification model for HER2-positive breast cancer brain metastasis and its implications in guiding treatment decisions.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Development of prognostic models for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer in females: a retrospective population-based study.BMC women's health · 2024Article
- Identification of potential diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers for breast cancer based on gene expression omnibus.World journal of clinical cases · 2023Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFor patients initially diagnosed with metastatic Her2-positive breast cancer (MHBC), we intended to construct a nomogram with risk stratification to predict prognosis and to explore the role of local surgery.
methodsWe retrieved data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Kaplan-Meier (KM) method and log-rank test were used for the selection of significant variables. Cox regression analysis and Fine-Gray test were utilized to confirm independent prognostic factors of overall survival (OS) and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS). A nomogram predicting 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year OS was developed and validated. Patients were stratified based on the optimal cut-off values of total personal score. KM method and log-rank test were used to estimate OS prognosis and benefit from local surgery and chemotherapy.
resultsThere were 1680 and 717 patients in the training and validation cohort. Age, race, marriage, T stage, estrogen receptor (ER) status, visceral metastasis (bone, brain, liver and lung) were identified as independent prognostic factors for OS and BCSS, while histology was also corelated with OS. C-indexes in the training and validation cohort were 0.70 and 0.68, respectively. Calibration plots indicated precise predictive ability. The total population was divided into low- (<141 points), intermediate- (142-208 points), and high-risk (>208 points) prognostic groups. Local surgery and chemotherapy brought various degrees of survival benefit for patients with diverse-risk prognosis.
conclusionsWe constructed a model with accurate prediction and discrimination. It would provide a reference for clinicians' decision-making. Surgery on the primary lesion was recommended for patients with good physical performance status, while further study on optimal surgical opportunity was needed.
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.