Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37927808›Full record

ArticleCancer diagnosis & prognosis

Staging for Breast Cancer: A Comparison Between Old and New Approaches.

Verena Kirn, Sarah Bors, Claudius Fridrich, Claudia Schumacher, Fabinshy Thangarajah

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer diagnosis & prognosis. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Verena KirnMedical Faculty of the University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Sarah BorsMedical Faculty of the University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Claudius FridrichBreast Center at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Heilig Geist Krankenhaus/Teaching Hospital of the University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Claudia SchumacherBreast Center St. Elisabeth Hospital/Teaching Hospital of the University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Fabinshy ThangarajahDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background/Aim: Staging for breast cancer in advanced stages or prior to neoadjuvant chemotherapy is recommended to be performed with CT scan of the chest and abdomen and a bone scan. This recommendation is valid since 2012, when conventional staging with chest x-ray and ultrasound of the abdomen was replaced by the more sensitive CT scan. However, it remains unclear if this approach improves patient outcome and prognosis. Patients and Methods: We identified patients who were treated for breast cancer at the breast center of the St. Elisabeth Hospital, Cologne, in 2012 and 2014. Clinical information such as age at diagnosis, stage, tumor biology, grading, and the applied method for staging was abstracted from the patient chart. We also looked for local or distant recurrence and data of survival. Results: A total of 1,122 patients were identified. Of those, 104 patients developed local or distant recurrence and 54 died. Conventional staging with chest x-ray, abdominal ultrasound and a bone scan was more often in 2012 (482 cases) than in 2014 (135), but CT-staging was more often in 2014 (180 vs. 29 cases). In general, less patients were staged in 2014 than in 2012. There were no significant survival differences between the two groups. Conclusion: Staging habits changed in 2012 compared to 2014 according to the changes in guidelines. This change did not affect disease-free survival.

Indexed as

Breast cancercomparisonguidelinesradiologic imagingstaging

Identifiers

PMID37927808
PMCPMC10619575

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.