ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2021
Comparison of the performance of four staging systems in determining the prognosis of breast cancer among women undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- External verification and improvement of the Neo-Bioscore staging system in a Chinese cohort.Annals of translational medicine · 2022Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDifferent tumor-related factors have been proposed to assess the risk of disease progression and death in women undergoing neoadjuvant breast cancer chemotherapy. Recently, besides the classical pre-treatment clinical stage (CS) and post-treatment pathologic stage (PS), estrogen receptor status and histologic grade (CPS + EG score) and HER2 results (Neo-Bioscore) have also been added to this suite of staging systems, generating new scores. The present study aims to compare the performance of these four staging systems, namely CS, PS, CPS + EG and Neo-Bioscore, in the prognosis of breast cancer in women undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
methodsThis study comprises a retrospective cohort study of female breast cancer patients diagnosed at the Brazilian National Cancer Institute, Brazil from January 2013 to December 2015. A descriptive analysis of patient characteristics was conducted, and Kaplan-Meier curves, a Cox proportional hazard analysis and Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves were developed according to the assessed staging system scores.
resultsA total of 803 patients were eligible for this study. Most were under 65 years old (88.0%), presented advanced tumors (clinical stage ≥ IIB 77.1%), with positive estrogen receptor (71.2%) and negative HER2 (75.7%) results. During the follow-up, 172 patients (21.4%) evolved to death. A statistical difference (p < 0.001) was observed between 5 year disease-free survival and 5 year overall survival rates according to the PS, CPS + EG and Neo-Bioscore staging systems.
conclusionThe PS, CPS + EG and Neo-Bioscore staging systems were proven to be equivalent to predict the prognosis of patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
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.