ArticleThe oncologist2025
Retrospective analysis to validate the CTS5 in patients from El Álamo IV registry and GEICAM adjuvant studies.
Article in The oncologist, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIdentifying high-risk of late recurrence (beyond 10 years) in patients with hormone receptor-positive HER2-negative early breast cancer (EBC) is crucial. The Clinical Treatment Score post-5 years (CTS5) score assesses recurrence risk after 5 years of endocrine therapy (ET). This study validated CTS5 as a prognostic tool for late recurrence by examining its association with Distant Recurrence-Free Survival using GEICAM study data and evaluating model calibration. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 5739 hormone receptor-positive HER2-negative EBC patients from the El Álamo IV registry (N = 3509, diagnosed between 2002 and 2005) and 4 adjuvant GEICAM studies (N = 2680, conducted between 1996 and 2006). All patients were distant recurrence-free and alive 5 years after starting adjuvant ET.
resultsThe CTS5 classified 43.9% of patients as low-risk, 32.2% as intermediate-risk, and 23.9% as high-risk. Significant differences in DR were observed: hazard ratio (HR) for intermediate- vs. low-risk was 2.55 (95% CI, 1.85-3.51, P < .0001), and HR for high- vs. low-risk was 5.77 (95% CI, 4.28-7.78, P < .0001). Similar results were found across subgroups by menopausal status, duration of adjuvant ET, and prior adjuvant chemotherapy (CT). Calibration showed CTS5 overestimated DR rates in low-risk (P = .0314) and high-risk (P < .0001) patients compared to observed rates.
conclusionsThe CTS5 categorized patients based on late DR risk regardless of menopausal status, ET duration, or CT treatment. However, the model tended to overestimate events, particularly in high-risk groups, especially among those treated with ET for less than 60 months or not receiving CT.
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.