Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33659121›Full record

ArticleCureus2021

Breast Cancer Patients at Increased Risk of Developing Type II Endometrial Cancer: Relative and Absolute Risk Estimation and Implications for Counseling.

Sara Portela, Aimee Cunningham, Alexandros Laios, Richard Hutson, Georgios Theophilou

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Endometrial Cancer Risk Among GermlineJCO precision oncology · 2023
    Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.

Sara PortelaGynaecological Oncology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, GBR.
Aimee CunninghamGynaecological Oncology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, GBR.
Alexandros LaiosGynaecological Oncology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, GBR.
Richard HutsonGynaecological Oncology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, GBR.
Georgios TheophilouGynaecological Oncology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, GBR.
Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction Breast cancer (BC) is a recognized risk factor for endometrial cancer (EC). Emerging literature indicates that it confers a higher risk of type II EC (T2EC) than type I EC (T1EC). Although some surgeons offer a prophylactic hysterectomy to BC patients referred for risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, insufficient evidence prevents this from being the standard practice. We aimed to quantify their absolute risk and relative risk (RR) of developing both EC subtypes and identify a higher-risk group that could be considered for prophylactic hysterectomy. Methodology This retrospective service evaluation compared patients diagnosed with BC between 2008 and 2014, who subsequently developed EC within 10 years to those who did not. Absolute risk and RR were calculated using the numbers of regional BC and EC cases within this group, alongside 2009 UK female population and EC incidence statistics. Binary logistic regression generated adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for patient- and disease-specific variables. Results A total of 45 BC patients developed EC, 24 had T1EC and 21 had T2EC. Their RR of developing EC was greater than that of the general population (RR: 12.44, p < 0.0001). Notably, this was higher for T2EC (RR: 33.96, p < 0.001) than T1EC (RR: 8.63, p < 0.0001). Nonetheless, the absolute risk remained low. Tamoxifen exposure was significantly more prevalent among T2EC patients (adjusted OR: 79.61, p = 0.003). Increased age at BC diagnosis was associated with T1EC (adjusted OR: 1.10, p = 0.043) and T2EC (adjusted OR: 1.13, p = 0.03). Neither smoking status nor family history of BC was significantly associated with any outcome. Conclusion Women with BC were more likely to develop T2EC than T1EC, and although the absolute risk was low, the cumulative risk was substantial enough to warrant vigilance. Tamoxifen exposure was significantly predictive of EC, particularly T2EC, and might facilitate risk estimation. Older women at BC diagnosis who receive tamoxifen treatment should be screened and closely monitored for EC. However, given the limitations of normal screening methods for the detection of T2EC, counseling for a prophylactic hysterectomy should also be considered. Clarification of the menopausal status will help make more meaningful recommendations.

Indexed as

breast cancer managementendometrial carcinomashysterectomytamoxifen

Identifiers

PMID33659121
PMCPMC7920226
OpenAlexW3126781373

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.