ArticleScientific reports2021
The beneficial role of Asian-based RecurIndex test in the prognostic prediction in Chinese male breast cancer patients.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- RecurIndex-derived molecular features associated with total pathological complete response in triple-negative breast cancer: An exploratory prospective cohort study with single-cell transcriptomic contextualization.Cancer biology & therapy · 2026Article
- Comparative Net Survival Analysis of Men and Women With Breast Cancer in Japan: A Population-Based Study.Cancer science · 2025Article
- Genetic Testing Enhances the Precision Diagnosis and Treatment of Breast Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Article
- Clinicopathological features of male patients with breast cancer based on a nationwide registry database in Japan.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2022Article
- RecurIndex assay as an aid for adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in HR-positive HER2-negative breast cancer patients.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Escalating and de-escalating treatments in HRTranslational breast cancer research : a journal focusing on translational research in breast cancer · 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
15 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
RecurIndex, a multigene profiling assay, can predict the risk of local recurrence and distant metastasis in female breast cancer (FBC), but its role in male breast cancer (MBC) remains unclear. In this study, the clinicopathological data of 43 consecutive MBC patients undergoing surgeries between 2009 and 2018 were retrospectively analysed. Their paraffin-embedded tissue sections were examined by RecurIndex test which comprised 2 models: recurrence index for local recurrence (RI-LR) and recurrence index for distant recurrence (RI-DR). Of 43 patients, there were 26 low-risk and 17 high-risk patients assessed by RI-LR, while 17 low-risk and 26 high-risk patients by RI-DR. For RI-LR, tumor N stage showed statistically significant (P < 0.001) between low- and high-risk patients; for RI-DR, differences were pronounced in tumor grade (P = 0.033), T stage (P = 0.043) and N stage (P = 0.003). In terms of clinical outcomes, the overall survival (OS) of low- and high-risk patients stratified by RI-LR showed no statistically significant differences (P = 0.460), while high-risk patients identified by RI-DR had a significantly worse distant recurrence-free survival (DRFS) (P = 0.035), progression-free survival (PFS) (P = 0.019) and OS (P = 0.044) than low-risk patients. Overall, RI-DR can effectively predict the DRFS, PFS and OS of MBC patients and identify those at low risk of recurrence, which may serve as a potential prognostic tool for MBC.
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.