Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35488982›Full record

ReviewCancer metastasis reviews2022

Oncobiology and treatment of breast cancer in young women.

Rakesh Kumar, Catarina Abreu, Masakazu Toi, Sunil Saini, Sandra Casimiro, Anshika Arora, Aswathy Mary Paul, Ravi Velaga, Pranela Rameshwar, Allan Lipton and 2 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Cancer metastasis reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

12 authors at 9 institutions in 4 countries.

Rakesh KumarCancer Research Institute, Himalayan Institute of Medical Sciences, Swami Rama Himalayan University, Dehradun, India. rakeshkumar@srhu.edu.in.
Catarina AbreuDepartment of Medical Oncology, Hospital de Santa Maria- Centro Hospitalar Universitário Lisboa Norte, Lisbon, Portugal.
Masakazu ToiGraduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
Sunil SainiCancer Research Institute, Himalayan Institute of Medical Sciences, Swami Rama Himalayan University, Dehradun, India.
Sandra CasimiroInstituto de Medicina Molecular-João Lobo Antunes, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal.
Anshika AroraCancer Research Institute, Himalayan Institute of Medical Sciences, Swami Rama Himalayan University, Dehradun, India.
Aswathy Mary PaulCancer Research Program, Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Biotechnology, Trivandrum, India.
Ravi VelagaGraduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
Pranela RameshwarDepartment of Medicine, Division of Hematology and Oncology, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ, USA.
Allan LiptonHematology-Oncology, Department of Medicine, Penn State University School of Medicine, Hershey, PA, USA.
Sudeep GuptaDepartment of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre and Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India.
Luis CostaDepartment of Medical Oncology, Hospital de Santa Maria- Centro Hospitalar Universitário Lisboa Norte, Lisbon, Portugal.
Institute of Medical Sciences · INKyoto University · JPUniversity of Lisbon · PTHomi Bhabha National Institute · INHospital de Santa Maria · PTPennsylvania State University · USRajiv Gandhi Centre for Biotechnology · INRutgers New Jersey Medical SchoolSwami Rama Himalayan University · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Female breast cancer emerged as the leading cancer type in terms of incidence globally in 2020. Although mortality due to breast cancer has improved during the past three decades in many countries, this trend has reversed in women less than 40 years since the past decade. From the biological standpoint, there is consensus among experts regarding the clinically relevant definition of breast cancer in young women (BCYW), with an age cut-off of 40 years. The idea that breast cancer is an aging disease has apparently broken in the case of BCYW due to the young onset and an overall poor outcome of BCYW patients. In general, younger patients exhibit a worse prognosis than older pre- and postmenopausal patients due to the aggressive nature of cancer subtypes, a high percentage of cases with advanced stages at diagnosis, and a high risk of relapse and death in younger patients. Because of clinically and biologically unique features of BCYW, it is suspected to represent a distinct biologic entity. It is unclear why BCYW is more aggressive and has an inferior prognosis with factors that contribute to increased incidence. However, unique developmental features, adiposity and immune components of the mammary gland, hormonal interplay and crosstalk with growth factors, and a host of intrinsic and extrinsic risk factors and cellular regulatory interactions are considered to be the major contributing factors. In the present article, we discuss the status of BCYW oncobiology, therapeutic interventions and considerations, current limitations in fully understanding the basis and underlying cause(s) of BCYW, understudied areas of BCYW research, and postulated advances in the coming years for the field.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsAdultFemaleHumansPrognosisEarly breast cancerPathobiologyPolygenicPrognosisTherapeuticsTranscriptomicsYoung women

Identifiers

PMID35488982
OpenAlexW4225156952

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.