Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39413498›Full record

ArticleClinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2024

Comprehensive diagnosis of advanced-stage breast cancer: exploring detection methods, molecular subtypes, and demographic influences - A cross-sectional study.

Fernando Wladimir Silva Rivas, Rodrigo Gonçalves, Bruna Salani Mota, Isabel Cristina Esposito Sorpreso, Tatiana Natasha Toporcov, José Roberto Filassi, Edia di Tullio Lopes, Laura Raíssa Schio, Yann-Luc Patrick Comtesse, Edmund Chada Baracat and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Re: Is cancer back? Psychological issues faced by survivors of breast cancer.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Development and validation of the Breast Cancer Myths Scale for women.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

11 authors.

Fernando Wladimir Silva RivasDisciplina de Ginecologia, Departamento de Obstetrícia e Ginecologia, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Rodrigo GonçalvesDisciplina de Ginecologia, Departamento de Obstetrícia e Ginecologia, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil; Setor de Mastologia da Disciplina de Ginecologia, Instituto de Câncer do Estado de São Paulo, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil. Electronic address: rodgon82@yahoo.com.
Bruna Salani MotaSetor de Mastologia da Disciplina de Ginecologia, Instituto de Câncer do Estado de São Paulo, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Isabel Cristina Esposito SorpresoDisciplina de Ginecologia, Departamento de Obstetrícia e Ginecologia, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Tatiana Natasha ToporcovDepartamento de Epidemiologia, Faculdade de Saúde Pública, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
José Roberto FilassiDisciplina de Ginecologia, Departamento de Obstetrícia e Ginecologia, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil; Setor de Mastologia da Disciplina de Ginecologia, Instituto de Câncer do Estado de São Paulo, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Edia di Tullio LopesRegistro Hospitalar de Câncer, Serviço de Arquivo Médico, Instituto de Câncer do Estado de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Laura Raíssa SchioDisciplina de Ginecologia, Departamento de Obstetrícia e Ginecologia, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Yann-Luc Patrick ComtesseDisciplina de Ginecologia, Departamento de Obstetrícia e Ginecologia, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Edmund Chada BaracatDisciplina de Ginecologia, Departamento de Obstetrícia e Ginecologia, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
José Maria Soares JúniorDisciplina de Ginecologia, Departamento de Obstetrícia e Ginecologia, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBrazil faces notable Breast Cancer (BC) mortality despite lower incidence rates versus developed countries. Despite guidelines from medical societies, Brazilian public policy recommends biennial mammographic screening for women aged 50 to 69. This study investigates sociodemographic and clinical factors related to BC detection methods and clinical stage at diagnosis.

methodsThe authors conducted a cross-sectional study at a São Paulo tertiary hospital. Patients were divided into 'symptomatic' and 'mammographic' detection groups. Bivariate analyses by detection method and clinical stage compared groups' profiles in terms of sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. Poisson regression analyses assessed sociodemographic and molecular subtypes´ influence on "mammographic detection" prevalence and "advanced-stage BC", reporting prevalence ratios and 95 % Confidence Intervals.

resultsThe authors studied 1,536 BC patients admitted from January 2016 to December 2017. The "mammographic detection" group had a higher proportion of patients aged 50‒69 years (62.9 % vs. 44.1 %), white race (63.3 % vs. 51.6 %), Catholic religion (58.2 % vs. 51.1 %), and Luminal A subtype (25.2 % vs. 13.2 %) compared to the "symptomatic detection" group. Patients with early-stage disease were more likely to have higher education levels (8.1 % vs. 5.5 %) and be married (39.8 % vs. 46.6 %) compared to those with advanced-stage. Molecular subtypes were significantly associated with the detection method and stage. The prevalence of advanced-stage disease in "mammographic" (n=313) and "symptomatic" (n=1191) groups was 18.5 % and 55 %, respectively . Mammographic detection significantly reduced advanced-stage BC prevalence (PR = 0.40, 95 % CI 0.31‒0.51).

conclusionMammographic detection reduces advanced-stage breast cancer prevalence in Brazil, emphasizing the importance of regular screenings, especially among at-risk sociodemographic groups. Enhancing mammographic screening accessibility, lowering the starting age to 40, and extending coverage to include annual mammograms can significantly lower breast cancer mortality in Brazil, benefiting public health and patient outcomes.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsMammographyNeoplasm StagingAdultAgedBrazilCross-Sectional StudiesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPrevalenceSociodemographic FactorsSocioeconomic FactorsAdvanced-stageBrazilBreast CancerScreeningSocial determinants of health

Identifiers

PMID39413498
PMCPMC11530810

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.