Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39702817›Full record

ArticleCancer causes & control : CCC2025

Misclassification of second primary and recurrent breast cancer in the surveillance epidemiology and end results registry.

Sarah C Van Alsten, Isaiah Zipple, Benjamin C Calhoun, Melissa A Troester

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer causes & control : CCC, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

4 authors.

Sarah C Van AlstenLineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2131-6939
Isaiah ZippleLineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Benjamin C CalhounLineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6505-5430
Melissa A TroesterLineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. troester@unc.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9506-6624

Funding

Virology Research Program (Program 4)P30CA016086 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI David Darr · 1985 to 2026
$201.5M
Tissue Procurement & PathologyP50CA058223 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI CHARLES M PEROU · 1992 to 2026
$59.3M
Cancer Control Education ProgramT32CA057726 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI Melissa B Gilkey, Melissa A. Troester · 2017 to 2026
$3.7M
P53, DNA Repair Imbalance, and Immune Response in Breast Cancer Mortality DisparitiesR01CA253450 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI KATHERINE A. HOADLEY, Melissa A. Troester · 2021 to 2026
$3.6M
Breast Cancer Research Foundation HEI-23-003NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016086NCI NIH HHS P50 CA058223NCI NIH HHS R01 CA253450NCI NIH HHS T32 CA057726NCI, United States R01CA253450NCI, United States T32CA057726Susan G. Komen OGUNC1202
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) registry incorporates laterality, histology, latency, and topography to identify second primary breast cancers. Contralateral tumors are classified as second primaries, but ipsilaterals are subject to additional inclusion criteria that increase specificity but may induce biases. It is important to understand how classification methods affect accuracy of second tumor classification. We collected estrogen, progesterone, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (ER, PR, Her2) status for 11,838 contralateral and 5,371 ipsilateral metachronous secondary tumors and estimated concordance odds ratios (cORs) to evaluate receptor dependence (the tendency for tumors to share receptor status) by laterality. If only second primaries are included, receptor dependence should be similar for contralateral and ipsilateral tumors. Thus, we compared ratios of cORs as a measure of inaccuracy. Cases who met ipsilateral second primary criteria were younger and had less aggressive primary tumor characteristics compared to contralateral tumors. Time to secondary tumors was (by definition) longer for ipsilaterals than contralaterals, especially among ER + primaries. Overall and in multiple strata, ipsilateral tumors showed higher receptor dependence than contralateral tumors (ratios of cORs > 1), suggesting some SEER-included ipsilaterals are recurrences. SEER multiple primary criteria increase specificity, but remain inaccurate and may lack sensitivity. The dearth of early occurring ipsilateral tumors (by definition), coupled with high observed receptor dependence among ipsilaterals, suggests important inaccuracies. Datasets that allow comparison of pathologist- and SEER-classification to true multi-marker genomic dependence are needed to understand inaccuracies induced by SEER definitions.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasms, Second PrimaryAdultAgedErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesFemaleHumansMiddle AgedReceptors, EstrogenReceptors, ProgesteroneRegistriesSEER ProgramErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesReceptors, EstrogenReceptors, ProgesteroneEtiologic heterogeneityMisclassificationRecurrenceSecond primary

Identifiers

PMID39702817
PMCPMC11981851

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.