ReviewCancers2023
Prognostic Markers of Microinvasive Breast Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cancers, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ten-Year Follow-up Clinical Outcomes and the Role of Adjuvant Chemotherapy in HER2-Positive Patients with Microinvasive Breast Cancer.Cancer research and treatment · 2026Article
- Is the risk of local recurrence higher for microinvasive breast cancer vs. early stage invasive breast cancer?Breast cancer research and treatment · 2025Article
- Case Report: Breast ductal carcinomaFrontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Characteristics and risk factors of axillary lymph node metastasis of microinvasive breast cancer.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
(1) Background: The prognostic factors of microinvasive (≤1 mm) breast carcinoma are not completely clear. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to clarify these factors. (2) Methods: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology was followed. Two databases were interrogated, PubMed and Embase, and papers in English were included to address this question. The selected studies were those that reported on female patients affected by microinvasive carcinoma, and on prognostic factors with a hazard ratio (HR) for disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). (3) Results: In total, 618 records were identified. After removing duplicates (166), identification, and screening (336 by title and abstract alone, 116 by full text and eventual supplementary material), 5 papers were selected. Seven different meta-analyses were conducted in this study, all referring to DFS, analyzing the following prognostic factors: estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, HER2 status, multifocality and grade of microinvasion, patient's age, and lymph node status. Only lymph node status was associated with prognosis and DFS (total number of cases: 1528; Z = 1.94;
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.