ArticleThoracic cancer2024
Subdivision of M1 category and prognostic stage for de novo metastatic breast cancer to enhance prognostic prediction and guide the selection of locoregional therapy.
Article in Thoracic cancer, 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.
- Real-world effectiveness of palbociclib in combination with an aromatase inhibitor in HR+/HER2- bone-only metastatic breast cancer.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2026Article
- Subdivision of M1 category and prognostic stage for de novo metastatic breast cancer to enhance prognostic prediction and guide the selection of locoregional therapy.Thoracic cancer · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough de novo metastatic breast cancer (dnMBC) is acknowledged as a heterogeneous disease, the current staging systems do not distinguish between patients within the M1 or stage IV category. This study aimed to refine the M1 category and prognostic staging for dnMBC to enhance prognosis prediction and guide the choice of locoregional treatment.
methodsWe selected patients with dnMBC from the SEER database (2010-2019), grouping them into training (N = 8048) and internal validation (N = 3450) cohorts randomly at a 7:3 ratio. An independent external validation cohort (N = 660) was enrolled from dnMBC patients (2010-2023) treated in three hospitals. Nomogram-based risk stratification was employed to refine the M1 category and prognostic stage, incorporating T/N stage, histologic grade, subtypes, and the location and number of metastatic sites. Both internal and external validation sets were used for validation analyses.
resultsBrain, liver, or lung involvement and multiple metastases were independent prognostic factors for overall survival (OS). The nomogram-based stratification effectively divided M1 stage into three groups: M1a (bone-only involvement), M1b (liver or lung involvement only, with or without bone metastases), and M1c (brain metastasis or involvement of both liver and lung, regardless of other metastatic sites). Only subtype and M1 stage were included to define the final prognostic stage. Significant differences in OS were observed across M1 and prognostic subgroups. Patients with the M1c stage benefited less from primary tumor surgery in comparison with M1a stage.
conclusionSubdivision of the M1 and prognostic stage could serve as a supplement to the current staging guidelines for dnMBC and guide locoregional treatment.
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.