Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33322204›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2020

Discordance between Primary Breast Cancer and Ipsilateral Breast Cancer Tumor Recurrence as a Function of Distance.

Sebastian M Jud, Reinhard Hatko, Julius Emons, Bianca Lauterbach, Carolin C Hack, Caroline Preuß, Werner Adler, Matthias W Beckmann, Felix Heindl

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 55% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sebastian M JudDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Erlangen University Hospital, Comprehensive Cancer Center, European Metropolitan Area Erlangen-Nuremberg (CCC ER-EMN), Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, 91054 Erlangen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8894-2785
Reinhard HatkoFreelance Computer Scientist, 85049 Ingolstadt, Germany.
Julius EmonsDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Erlangen University Hospital, Comprehensive Cancer Center, European Metropolitan Area Erlangen-Nuremberg (CCC ER-EMN), Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, 91054 Erlangen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2520-4443
Bianca LauterbachDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Erlangen University Hospital, Comprehensive Cancer Center, European Metropolitan Area Erlangen-Nuremberg (CCC ER-EMN), Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, 91054 Erlangen, Germany.
Carolin C HackDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Erlangen University Hospital, Comprehensive Cancer Center, European Metropolitan Area Erlangen-Nuremberg (CCC ER-EMN), Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, 91054 Erlangen, Germany.
Caroline PreußDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Erlangen University Hospital, Comprehensive Cancer Center, European Metropolitan Area Erlangen-Nuremberg (CCC ER-EMN), Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, 91054 Erlangen, Germany.
Werner AdlerDepartment of Biometry and Epidemiology, Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, 91054 Erlangen, Germany.
Matthias W BeckmannDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Erlangen University Hospital, Comprehensive Cancer Center, European Metropolitan Area Erlangen-Nuremberg (CCC ER-EMN), Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, 91054 Erlangen, Germany.
Felix HeindlDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Erlangen University Hospital, Comprehensive Cancer Center, European Metropolitan Area Erlangen-Nuremberg (CCC ER-EMN), Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, 91054 Erlangen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5484-2575
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRisk factors for ipsilateral breast cancer tumor recurrence (IBTR) are well established and include grading, nodal status, and receptor status. Little is known about the influence of the local distance between the primary tumor and recurrences on changes in tumor characteristics and prognosis.

methodsIn a retrospective setting, we analyzed primary breast cancers and their recurrences. Localizations of primary and recurrent breast cancer were recorded to calculate the relative distance in pixels. Analysis was performed regarding tumor characteristics, relative distance between both, and their impact on breast cancer prognosis.

resultsIn a cohort of 142 patients with ipsilateral recurrence, no statistically significant difference could be shown in the change in tumor characteristics depending on distance. Progesterone receptor (PR) and estrogene receptor (ER) status changed in 22.7% and 14.9% of cases, respectively. human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (ERBB2, HER2) status changed in 18.3% of cases. Survival was in accordance with the literature, with luminal-A-like tumors as best and triple negative breast cancers (TNBC) as worst prognosis. With a threshold of 162 pixels, the survival was significantly better in the group with shorter distance.

conclusionChange in tumor characteristics from primary breast cancer to recurrence occurs more often in PR than ER. In contrast to other work, in this dataset, recurrences with a larger distance to the primary tumor had a worse prognosis in univariate analysis. A Cox model might indicate the possibility that this influence is independent of other risk factors.

Indexed as

breast canceripsilateral recurrenceprognosistumor characteristics

Identifiers

PMID33322204
PMCPMC7764724
OpenAlexW3111673460

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.