ArticleAnnals of surgical treatment and research2022
The different prognostic impact of age according to individual molecular subtypes in breast cancer.
Article in Annals of surgical treatment and research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cell populations in human breast cancers are molecularly and biologically distinct with age.Nature aging · 2025Article
- A Retrospective Exploratory Analysis for Serum Extracellular Vesicles Reveals APRIL (TNFSF13), CXCL13, and VEGF-A as Prognostic Biomarkers for Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Young age at diagnosis has been considered a poor prognostic factor. However, considering young age itself as an independent poor prognostic factor for all breast cancers is unwarranted. We analyzed the different prognostic effects of age as a prognostic factor according to molecular subtype. Methods: We retrieved data from 1,819 patients with primary breast cancer at the breast cancer center between 2007 and 2012. We classified each molecular subtype in 3 age cohorts (<40, 40-50, and >50 years). The associations of age and molecular subtypes with relapse-free survival (RFS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) were assessed. Results: Patients aged <40 years showed a poor histologic grade, hormone receptor negative expression than older patients, and had a higher proportion of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) (P < 0.001). This was thought to have led to a significantly shorter RFS than that of older patients (P < 0.001). In the subgroup analysis according to molecular subtypes, the poorer RFS was observed only in patients aged <40 years with luminal type breast cancer (P < 0.001). Age was an independent prognostic factor of RFS in luminal-type breast cancer (P = 0.001). However, no difference in RFS between age groups was found for patients with other subtypes (human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 overexpression, TNBC). No significant effect between age groups was found in DSS for patients with all molecular subtypes. Conclusion: Age at diagnosis of breast cancer affected prognosis differently according to molecular subtype. Age itself is not an independent prognostic factor. Age of <40 years showed a limited worse prognostic impact of recurrence in luminal type breast cancer only.
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.