Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39605105›Full record

SynthesisBreast cancer research : BCR2024

Metastatic recurrence in women diagnosed with non-metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Eileen Morgan, Colette O'Neill, Richa Shah, Oliver Langselius, Yaqi Su, Clara Frick, Hanna Fink, Aude Bardot, Paul M Walsh, Ryan R Woods and 12 more

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Breast cancer research : BCR, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Trajectories of dyadic fear of cancer recurrence in breast cancer couples: a prospective observational study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Observational
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. 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.

Eileen MorganCancer Surveillance Branch, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC/WHO), Lyon, France. morgane@iarc.who.int.
Colette O'NeillNational Cancer Registry Ireland, Cork, Ireland.
Richa ShahCancer Surveillance Branch, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC/WHO), Lyon, France.
Oliver LangseliusCancer Surveillance Branch, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC/WHO), Lyon, France.
Yaqi SuCancer Surveillance Branch, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC/WHO), Lyon, France.
Clara FrickCancer Surveillance Branch, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC/WHO), Lyon, France.
Hanna FinkCancer Surveillance Branch, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC/WHO), Lyon, France.
Aude BardotCancer Surveillance Branch, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC/WHO), Lyon, France.
Paul M WalshNational Cancer Registry Ireland, Cork, Ireland.
Ryan R WoodsBC Cancer, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Lou GonsalvesConnecticut Department of Public Health, Connecticut Tumor Registry, Hartfort, CT, USA.
Jan F NygårdCancer Registry of Norway, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Serban NegoitaData Quality, Analysis, and Interpretation Branch, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, Surveillance Research Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Esmeralda Ramirez-PenaData Quality, Analysis, and Interpretation Branch, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, Surveillance Research Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Karen GelmonBC Cancer, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Nicoleta AntoneBreast Cancer Center, Institute of Oncology "Ion Chiricuta", Cluj-Napoca-Napoca, Romania.
Miriam MutebiBreast Surgical Oncology, Aga Khan University Hospital, Nairobi, Kenya.
Sabine SieslingDepartment of Research and Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL), Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Fatima CardosoBreast Unit, Champalimaud Clinical Center/Champalimaud Foundation and ABC Global Alliance, Lisbon, Portugal.
Julie GralowAmerican Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA, USA.
Isabelle SoerjomataramCancer Surveillance Branch, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC/WHO), Lyon, France.
Melina ArnoldCancer Surveillance Branch, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC/WHO), Lyon, France.

Funding

Susan G. Komen CCR19608129World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo assess proportions of metastatic recurrence in women initially diagnosed with non-metastatic breast cancer by stage at diagnosis, breast cancer subtype, calendar period and age.

methodsA systematic search of MEDLINE and Web of Science databases (January 2010-12 May 2022) was conducted. Studies reporting the proportion of distant metastatic recurrence in women with non-metastatic breast cancer were identified and outcomes and characteristics were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed independently by two reviewers. Random-effects meta-analyses of proportions were used to calculate pooled estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

results193 studies covering over 280,000 patients were included in the main analysis. Pooled proportions of metastatic recurrence increased with longer median follow-up time from 12.2% (95% CI 10.5-14.0%) at 1-4 years post diagnosis, 14.3% (95% CI 12.9-15.7%) at 5-9 years to 23.3% (95% CI 20.1-26.8) at 10 years or more. Regional variation was observed with pooled estimates ranging from 11.0% (95% CI 8.5-13.7%) in Europe to 26.4% (95% CI 16.7-37.4%) in Africa (1-4 years follow-up). Proportions of recurrence were higher in studies with diagnosis before 2000 (22.2%, 95% CI 15.1-30.3) compared to studies with diagnosis from 2000 onwards (12.8%, 95% CI 11.7-14.0). At 1-4 years median follow-up, pooled proportions of metastatic recurrence were higher in women with hormone receptor negative (15.2%, 95% CI 12.0-18.7%) compared with receptor positive disease (9.6%, 95% CI 6.2-13.6%) and in women with locally advanced (33.2%, 95% CI 24.7-42.3%) relative to early disease at initial diagnosis (4.8%, 95% CI 2.5-7.8%). Proportions were higher in those under 50 years compared with 70+ years, 18.6% (95% CI 15.9-21.4%) versus 13.3% (95% CI 9.2, 18.0%), respectively. Heterogeneity was high in all meta-analyses and results should be interpreted with caution.

conclusionsHigher proportions of metastatic recurrence in patients initially diagnosed at an advanced stage and in earlier calendar period emphasises the importance of early detection and treatment advancements. As the global number of breast cancer survivors increases, research and health policy efforts should be directed towards timely diagnosis and access to effective treatments and care. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022314500.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsNeoplasm MetastasisNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalFemaleHumansNeoplasm StagingBreast cancerMeta-analysisMetastasisRecurrenceSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID39605105
PMCPMC11603627

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.