ArticleCancer causes & control : CCC2025
Misclassification of second primary and recurrent breast cancer in the surveillance epidemiology and end results registry.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rising Risk of Subsequent Primary Cancers Among US Cancer Survivors, 2000-2021.Cancer medicine · 2026Article
- Subsequent primary cancer incidence among cancer survivors in the United States, 1975-2019: An age-period-cohort analysis.PLoS medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluation of methods to classify ipsilateral breast tumour recurrences as local recurrence or new primary tumour.NPJ breast cancer · 2026Article
- County-level socioeconomic status, rurality, and second primary cancer risk among breast cancer survivors in the United States.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
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
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.