ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2022
Long-term survival of screen-detected synchronous and metachronous bilateral non-palpable breast cancer among Chinese women: a hospital-based study (2003-2017).
Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bilateral Primary Breast Cancer: Current Evidence and Future Perspectives.Breast cancer (Dove Medical Press) · 2026Review
- Breast cancer as the first primary malignancy: clinical pathological characteristics of common cancer combinations.Discover oncology · 2025Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeScreen-detected unilateral non-palpable breast cancer (NPBC) shows favorable prognosis, whereas bilateral breast cancer (BBC), especially synchronous BBC (SBBC) manifests worse survival than unilateral breast cancer (BC). It remains unclear whether screen-detected bilateral NPBC has compromised survival and requires intensified treatment or favorable prognosis and needs de-escalating therapy.
methodsFrom 2003 to 2017, 1,075 consecutive NPBC patients were retrospectively reviewed. There were 988 patients with unilateral NPBC (UniNPBC), and 87 patients with ipsilateral NPBC + any contralateral BC [(N + AnyContra) PBC], including 32 patients with bilateral NPBC (BiNPBC) and 55 patients with ipsilateral NPBC + contralateral palpable cancer [(N + Contra) PBC]. Median follow-up time was 91 (48-227) months. Clinicopathological characteristics were compared between UniNPBC and BBC, whereas relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) among BBC subgroups. RFS and OS factors of BBC were identified.
resultsCompared to UniNPBC, patients with screen-detected bilateral BC had more invasive (85.1%, 74.8%), ER negative (26.4%, 17.1%), PR negative (36.8%, 23.5%), triple-negative (21.6%, 8.5%) BC as well as less breast conserving surgery (17.2%, 32.4%), radiotherapy (13.8%, 32.0%) and endocrine therapy (71.3%, 83.9%). 10 year RFS and OS rates of (N + AnyContra) PBC (72.8%, 81.5%), (N + Contra) PBC (60.6%, 73.9%), and synchronous (N + Contra) PBC (58.1%, 70.1%) were significantly compromised compared to UniNPBC (91.0%, 97.2%). RFS factors of BBC included pN3 (p = 0.048), lymphovascular invasion (p = 0.008) and existence of contralateral palpable interval BC (p = 0.008), while the OS relevant factor was pN3 (p = 0.018).
conclusionScreen-detected bilateral NPBC including SynBiNPBC and MetaBiNPBC showed good prognosis as UniNPBC so that the therapy of BiNPBC could be de-escalated and optimized according to UniNPBC. Contrarily, screen-detected ipsilateral NPBC with contralateral palpable BC [(N + Contra) PBC] manifested unfavorable survival worse than UniNPBC and synchronous (N + Contra) PBC had the worst survival among all subgroups, implying that these were actually bilateral interval BC and required intensified treatment.
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.