ArticleBreast cancer research : BCR2024
Increased risk of contralateral breast cancer for BRCA1/2 wild-type, high-risk Korean breast cancer patients: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Breast cancer research : BCR, 2024. 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.
- Bilateral Primary Breast Cancer: Current Evidence and Future Perspectives.Breast cancer (Dove Medical Press) · 2026Review
- Review
- Recurrence Patterns and Long-Term Results After Curative Surgery for Patients With Breast Cancer.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- A contemporary review of breast cancer risk factors and the role of artificial intelligence.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to investigate the contralateral breast cancer (CBC) recurrence rate in Korean breast cancer patients according to their BRCA1/2 germline mutation status, focusing particularly on the CBC recurrence risk in BRCA1/2 negative (BRCAx) patients.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective study on 13,107 primary breast cancer patients. The patients were divided into high-risk and low-risk groups for hereditary breast cancer based on the Korean National Health Insurance Service's eligibility criteria for BRCA1/2 germline mutation testing. The high-risk group was further categorized into the BRCA mutation group, the BRCAx group, and the not tested group. We evaluated the overall survival and cumulative risk of developing CBC in these patients.
resultsAmong 4494 high-risk patients, 973 (21.7%) underwent genetic testing for BRCA1/2 germline mutation, revealing mutations in 158 patients (16.2%). We observed significant overall survival differences across all four groups, with the high-risk, not-tested group demonstrating notably worse overall survival (p < 0.001). However, when adjusted for other prognostic factors, there was no significant differences in hazard ratio of death between the four groups. The cumulative risk of CBC also varied among the groups. Patients with BRCA1/2 mutations showed a 7.3-fold increased risk of CBC compared to the low-risk group (95% CI 4.11-13.0, p < 0.001). Interestingly, BRCAx patients also demonstrated a significantly higher risk of CBC (HR 2.77, 95% CI 1.76-4.35, p < 0.001). The prognostic importance of the BRCAx for CBC recurrence persisted after adjusting for the age and subtype, but became insignificant when the family history of breast cancer was adjusted.
conclusionBreast cancer patients who are at high risk of hereditary breast cancer but with wild-type BRCA 1/2 genes (BRCAx) have increased risk of developing contralateral breast cancer when compared to the low-risk patients. More careful surveillance and follow-up can be offered to these patients especially when they have family history of breast cancer.
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.