ArticleThe oncologist2024
Closing the gap: prognostic and predictive biomarker validation for personalized care in a Latin American hormone-dependent breast cancer cohort.
Article in The oncologist, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ten-year subtype survival and systemic-therapy pathways analysis after breast-cancer recurrence in the LACRN MPBC multicountry cohort study.Lancet regional health. Americas · 2026Article
- Cancer genomics and bioinformatics in Latin American countries: applications, challenges, and perspectives.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
28 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSeveral guidelines recommend the use of different classifiers to determine the risk of recurrence (ROR) and treatment decisions in patients with HR+HER2- breast cancer. However, data are still lacking for their usefulness in Latin American (LA) patients. Our aim was to evaluate the comparative prognostic and predictive performance of different ROR classifiers in a real-world LA cohort.
methodsThe Molecular Profile of Breast Cancer Study (MPBCS) is an LA case-cohort study with 5-year follow-up. Stages I and II, clinically node-negative HR+HER2- patients (n = 340) who received adjuvant hormone therapy and/or chemotherapy, were analyzed. Time-dependent receiver-operator characteristic-area under the curve, univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression (CPHR) models were used to compare the prognostic performance of several risk biomarkers. Multivariate CPHR with interaction models tested the predictive ability of selected risk classifiers.
resultsWithin this cohort, transcriptomic-based classifiers such as the recurrence score (RS), EndoPredict (EP risk and EPClin), and PAM50-risk of recurrence scores (ROR-S and ROR-PC) presented better prognostic performances for node-negative patients (univariate C-index 0.61-0.68, adjusted C-index 0.77-0.80, adjusted hazard ratios [HR] between high and low risk: 4.06-9.97) than the traditional classifiers Ki67 and Nottingham Prognostic Index (univariate C-index 0.53-0.59, adjusted C-index 0.72-0.75, and adjusted HR 1.85-2.54). RS (and to some extent, EndoPredict) also showed predictive capacity for chemotherapy benefit in node-negative patients (interaction P = .0200 and .0510, respectively).
conclusionIn summary, we could prove the clinical validity of most transcriptomic-based risk classifiers and their superiority over clinical and immunohistochemical-based methods in the heterogenous, real-world node-negative HR+HER2- MPBCS cohort.
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.