ArticleClinical Medicine Insights. Oncology2024
Breast Cancer in Young Women: Is It Different? A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Clinical Medicine Insights. Oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Breast Cancer in Women Aged ≤35 Years: A Single-Center Retrospective Comparative Analysis by Age Subgroup.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Very young age stratification and development of a multiple-imputation Cox nomogram for disease-free survival in breast cancer women aged ≤40 years.The oncologist · 2026Article
- An international cohort study of breast cancer survival in young women.BJC reports · 2026Article
- Exploring the lived experiences of women with breast cancer: a qualitative study across different stages of the disease.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Article
- Factors associated with breast cancer detection method in California women: an analysis of California Health Interview Survey data.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2025Article
- Rising Breast Cancer Rates in Younger Women: Could Dietary Advanced Glycation End Products Be the Missing Link?Journal of young women's breast cancer and healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Breast cancer (BC) is one of the commonest cancers among women worldwide. Differences regarding tumor biology, presentation, genetics, and molecular subtypes may contribute to the relatively poorer prognosis among younger women. Limited information exists regarding pathologic characteristics and long-term outcomes among this group. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 695 BC patients diagnosed over a 10-year period and investigated the clinicopathological characteristics and long-term disease outcomes among patients diagnosed at age less than or equal to 40 years compared with older ones. Cox regression analysis was performed, and Kaplan-Meier curves were generated to assess overall survival (OS). Results: Compared with the younger patients (⩽40 years) estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) expression was mainly positive in older patients (>40 years) (76.2% vs 61.3% and 64.2% vs 49.6%, respectively). The most common molecular subtype in both age groups was luminal B (44.1% in older and 40.3% in younger). A clinical complete remission after neoadjuvant therapy was observed more frequently in older patients (76.7%; N = 442) in comparison with the younger patients (66.4%; N = 79) ( Conclusion: Overall survival in women diagnosed with BC at age less than or equal to 40 years is not significantly worse than older patients. However, among patients with luminal A subtype, younger women had relatively poor survival. Further research is needed to understand this age-based disparity in outcomes.
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.