ArticlePloS one2024
Delving into female breast cancer: Distinct disease-specific survival outcomes between invasive lobular and ductal carcinomas revealed by propensity score matching.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe difference in prognosis between invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) and invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) is still controversial in the academic community. Resolving this controversy can help to more accurately determine patients' prognosis, provide further personalized treatment, alleviate unnecessary psychological burden for some patients, and provide direction for further fundamental research. PATIENTS AND
methodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted using the SEER Research Plus Data 8 Registries, Nov 2021 sub (1978-2019), including female breast cancer patients diagnosed with ILC or IDC between 2010 and 2015. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed, and key covariates affecting prognosis were selected. Propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to match patients, and balance tests were conducted to evaluate covariate distribution. Disease-specific survival (DSS) differences between the matched IDC and ILC groups were compared.
resultsFollowing PSM, the covariate differences between the IDC and ILC groups were significantly reduced. The survival analysis revealed a significantly better prognosis for the IDC group than the ILC group (Log-rank test p < 0.001), with a 28.0% increased risk observed in the ILC group.
conclusionThis study provides evidence supporting the existence of significant differences in prognosis between IDC and ILC patients after rigorous matching. The IDC group displayed a significantly better prognosis than the ILC group. Notably, these findings have implications for personalized treatment in clinical practice and contribute to the ongoing academic debate on survival differences between IDC and ILC. However, further research is needed to investigate the biological mechanisms, gene expression, and signaling pathway disparities between IDC and ILC, aiming to provide more targeted guidance for clinical decision-making.
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.