ArticleGynecologic oncology reports2021
Concomitant diagnosis of endometrial and breast cancer - does the sequence matters?
Article in Gynecologic oncology reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prognostic Stratification of Multiple-Classifier Endometrial Cancers: Cohort Study and Meta-Analysis.Cancers · 2026Article
- Breast cancer as the first primary malignancy: clinical pathological characteristics of common cancer combinations.Discover oncology · 2025Review
- Changes in metabolic syndrome and the risk of breast and endometrial cancer according to menopause in Korean women.Epidemiology and health · 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
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo examine whether patients with both breast cancer (BC) and endometrial cancer (EC) have different features of disease, and whether the sequence of appearance of these tumors is correlated with a more aggressive course.
methodsA retrospective, multi-center observational cohort study of patients treated in two tertiary medical centers between 2014 and 2020. Files of patients who had a co-diagnosis of BC and EC were reviewed and clinical, epidemiological, pathological and genetic characteristics were collected.
results67 patients with a co-diagnosis of both malignances were divided into two groups according to primary tumor diagnosis: BC first group (43/67, 64%) and EC first group (24/67, 36%). The time interval between diagnosis of malignancies was significantly longer in the BC first group (mean 144.5 months vs. 67 months, p < 0.05). BRCA mutations were found in higher numbers in the BC first group (27.5% vs. 9.5%, p = 0.18). A significantly higher number of patients in the BC first group had uterine serous carcinoma (USC) histology (44% vs. 12.5%, p < 0.05). This was independent of tamoxifen usage among patients (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.17-2.49).
conclusionsIn patients suffering from both BC and EC, the sequence of occurrence of malignancies has relevance: When EC presents as a second primary tumor, it tends to present in a more aggressive form, independent of previous tamoxifen use. The time interval between the diagnosis of malignancies was significantly longer in this group, offering an opportunity to improve preventive measures to decrease the likelihood of a subsequent lethal second cancer.
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.