Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36944149›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology2023

Novel Prognostic Staging System for Patients With De Novo Metastatic Breast Cancer.

Jennifer K Plichta, Samantha M Thomas, Daniel F Hayes, Mariana Chavez-MacGregor, Kimberly Allison, Jennifer de Los Santos, Amy M Fowler, Armando E Giuliano, Priyanka Sharma, Benjamin D Smith and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

30 citing papers in PubMed.

  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
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

13 authors.

Jennifer K PlichtaDepartment of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC.ORCID 0000-0002-7411-0558
Samantha M ThomasBiostatistics Shared Resource, Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC.
Daniel F HayesUniversity of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI.ORCID 0000-0003-3620-7575
Mariana Chavez-MacGregorDepartment of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.ORCID 0000-0002-7189-0763
Kimberly AllisonDepartment of Pathology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA.
Jennifer de Los SantosGrandview Cancer Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Birmingham, AL.
Amy M FowlerDepartment of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI.ORCID 0000-0002-1172-1618
Armando E GiulianoCedars-Sinai Medical Center, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA.
Priyanka SharmaDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, University of Kansas Medical Center, Westwood, KS.ORCID 0000-0001-8592-2239
Benjamin D SmithDivision of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.ORCID 0000-0001-7866-1093
Elizabeth van EyckenBelgian Cancer Registry, Brussels, Belgium.
Stephen B EdgeDepartment of Surgical Oncology and Cancer Prevention and Control, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY.ORCID 0000-0002-3285-6191
Gabriel N HortobagyiDepartment of Breast Medical Oncology, Division of Cancer Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.ORCID 0000-0002-4873-4412

Funding

Women's Cancer Research ProgramP30CA014236 · NCI · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI JOHN N. NORTON · 1985 to 2026
$174.8M
Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women's HealthK12HD043446 · NICHD · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI AMUNDSEN, CINDY · 2002 to 2023
$9.6M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA014236NICHD NIH HHS K12 HD043446
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeGiven the heterogeneity and improvement in outcomes for metastatic breast cancer (MBC), we developed a staging system that refines prognostic estimates for patients with metastatic cancer at the time of initial diagnosis, de novo MBC (dnMBC), on the basis of survival outcomes and disease-related variables.

methodsPatients with dnMBC (2010-2016) were selected from the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) was used to group patients with similar overall survival (OS) on the basis of clinical T category, grade, estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, histology, organ system site of metastases (bone-only, brain-only, visceral), and number of organ systems involved. Three-year OS rates were used to assign a final stage: IVA: >70%, IVB: 50%-70%, IVC: 25 to <50%, and IVD: <25%. Bootstrapping was applied with 1,000 iterations, and final stage assignments were made based on the most commonly occurring assignment. Unadjusted OS was estimated. Validation analyses were conducted using SEER and NCDB.

resultsAt a median follow-up of 52.9 months, the median OS of the original cohort (N = 42,467) was 35.4 months (95% CI, 34.8 to 35.9). RPA stratified patients into 53 groups with 3-year OS rates ranging from 73.5% to 5.7%; these groups were amalgamated into four stage groups: 3-year OS, A = 73.2%, B = 61.9%, C = 40.1%, and D = 17% (log-rank

conclusionOur findings regarding the heterogeneity in outcomes for patients with dnMBC could guide future revisions of the current American Joint Committee on Cancer staging guidelines for patients with newly diagnosed stage IV disease. Our findings should be independently confirmed.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansNeoplasm StagingPrognosis

Identifiers

PMID36944149
PMCPMC10414698

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.