Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38745989›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet regional health. Europe2024

Risks of second primary cancers among 584,965 female and male breast cancer survivors in England: a 25-year retrospective cohort study.

Isaac Allen, Hend Hassan, Walburga Yvonne Joko-Fru, Catherine Huntley, Lucy Loong, Tameera Rahman, Bethany Torr, Andrew Bacon, Craig Knott, Sophie Jose and 12 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet regional health. Europe, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Immigration and Social Factors, Tumor Stage, and Risk of Contralateral Breast Cancer in Asian American and Hispanic Women.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. 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

22 authors.

Isaac AllenNational Disease Registration Service, National Health Service England, London, United Kingdom.
Hend HassanNational Disease Registration Service, National Health Service England, London, United Kingdom.
Walburga Yvonne Joko-FruNational Disease Registration Service, National Health Service England, London, United Kingdom.
Catherine HuntleyNational Disease Registration Service, National Health Service England, London, United Kingdom.
Lucy LoongNational Disease Registration Service, National Health Service England, London, United Kingdom.
Tameera RahmanNational Disease Registration Service, National Health Service England, London, United Kingdom.
Bethany TorrNational Disease Registration Service, National Health Service England, London, United Kingdom.
Andrew BaconNational Disease Registration Service, National Health Service England, London, United Kingdom.
Craig KnottNational Disease Registration Service, National Health Service England, London, United Kingdom.
Sophie JoseNational Disease Registration Service, National Health Service England, London, United Kingdom.
Sally VernonNational Disease Registration Service, National Health Service England, London, United Kingdom.
Margreet LüchtenborgNational Disease Registration Service, National Health Service England, London, United Kingdom.
Joanna PethickNational Disease Registration Service, National Health Service England, London, United Kingdom.
Katrina LavelleNational Disease Registration Service, National Health Service England, London, United Kingdom.
Fiona McRonaldNational Disease Registration Service, National Health Service England, London, United Kingdom.
Diana EcclesDepartment of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Eva J A MorrisApplied Health Research Unit, Big Data Institute, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Steven HardyNational Disease Registration Service, National Health Service England, London, United Kingdom.
Clare TurnbullDivision of Genetics and Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, United Kingdom.
Marc TischkowitzDepartment of Medical Genetics, Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, National Institute for Health Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Paul PharoahDepartment of Computational Biomedicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Antonis C AntoniouCentre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Second primary cancers (SPCs) after breast cancer (BC) present an increasing public health burden, with little existing research on socio-demographic, tumour, and treatment effects. We addressed this in the largest BC survivor cohort to date, using a novel linkage of National Disease Registration Service datasets. Methods: The cohort included 581,403 female and 3562 male BC survivors diagnosed between 1995 and 2019. We estimated standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) for combined and site-specific SPCs using incidences for England, overall and by age at BC and socioeconomic status. We estimated incidences and Kaplan-Meier cumulative risks stratified by age at BC, and assessed risk variation by socio-demographic, tumour, and treatment characteristics using Cox regression. Findings: Both genders were at elevated contralateral breast (SIR: 2.02 (95% CI: 1.99-2.06) females; 55.4 (35.5-82.4) males) and non-breast (1.10 (1.09-1.11) females, 1.10 (1.00-1.20) males) SPC risks. Non-breast SPC risks were higher for females younger at BC diagnosis (SIR: 1.34 (1.31-1.38) <50 y, 1.07 (1.06-1.09) ≥50 y) and more socioeconomically deprived (SIR: 1.00 (0.98-1.02) least deprived quintile, 1.34 (1.30-1.37) most). Interpretation: Enhanced SPC surveillance may benefit BC survivors, although specific recommendations require more detailed multifactorial risk and cost-benefit analyses. The associations between deprivation and SPC risks could provide clinical management insights. Funding: CRUK Catalyst Award CanGene-CanVar (C61296/A27223). Cancer Research UK grant: PPRPGM-Nov 20∖100,002. This work was supported by core funding from the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre (NIHR203312)]. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.

Indexed as

Breast cancerDeprivationEpidemiologyIncidencePathologyRiskSecond primary cancerTreatment

Identifiers

PMID38745989
PMCPMC11092881

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.