ArticleBreast cancer (Tokyo, Japan)2023
Assessment of nuclear grade-based recurrence risk classification in patients with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, node-positive high-risk early breast cancer.
Article in Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHistological grade (HG) has been used in the MonrachE trial to select patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, node-positive high-risk early breast cancer (EBC). Although nuclear grade (NG) is widely used in Japan, it is still unclear whether replacing HG with NG can appropriately select high-risk patients.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 647 patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative, node-positive EBC and classified them into the following four groups: group 1: ≥ 4 positive axillary lymph nodes (pALNs) or 1-3 pALNs and either grade 3 of both grading systems or tumors ≥ 5 cm; group 2: 1-3 pALNs, grade < 3, tumor < 5 cm, and Ki-67 ≥ 20%; group 3: 1-3 pALNs, grade < 3, tumor < 5 cm, and Ki-67 < 20%; and group 4: group 2 or 3 by HG classification but group 1 by NG classification. We compared invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) and distant relapse-free survival (DRFS) among the four groups using the Kaplan-Meier method with the log-rank test.
resultsGroup 1 had a significantly worse 5-year IDFS and DRFS than groups 2 and 3 (IDFS 80.8% vs. 89.5%, P = 0.0319, 80.8% vs. 95.5%, P = 0.002; DRFS 85.2% vs. 95.3%, P = 0.0025, 85.2% vs. 98.4%, P < 0.001, respectively). Group 4 also had a significantly worse 5-year IDFS (78.0%) and DRFS (83.6%) than groups 2 and 3.
conclusionsNG was useful for stratifying the risk of recurrence in patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative, node-positive EBC and was the appropriate risk assessment for patient groups not considered high-risk by HG classification.
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.