ArticleBMC cancer2025
Early detection of triple-negative breast cancer: evidence of a favourable prognostic impact in a comparative analysis of screen-detected versus symptomatic cases.
Article in BMC cancer, 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMammographic screening is effective in reducing breast cancer mortality, but the impact of screening on triple-negative breast cancers (TNBCs) outcomes remains debated. This study aims to determine if screen detection is an independent prognostic factor for TNBCs and to analyse the radiological and pathological differences between screen-detected and symptomatic TNBCs.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study analysed 353 histologically confirmed TNBC cases diagnosed between 2013 and 2020 at a single institution in Turin, Italy. Cases were categorized into screen-detected and symptomatic groups based on initial presentation. Clinical, radiological and pathological characteristics as well as disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared between groups. Statistical analyses included Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Cox proportional hazard models, adjusting for several clinical and biological variables.
results50.1% of cases were screen-detected and 49.9% were symptomatic. Screen-detected cases were more commonly smaller (T1 or T2) (96.6%) than symptomatic cases (75%) (p < 0.001). Also, compared to symptomatic tumours, screen-detected ones were more often node negative (62.4% vs. 48%, p = 0.007) and diagnosed at a lower stage (85.4% vs. 63.8%, p < 0.001), with better DFS and OS. Detection method was not an independent prognostic factor, while stage at diagnosis, vascular invasion, histologic type and tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILS) were more significant predictors of prognosis. Radiological and biological features were similar between the two groups.
conclusionsTNBCs correlate with favourable pathological features and improved survival outcomes in univariate analyses, but these benefits diminish when accounting for traditional prognostic factors. Hence, the better prognosis observed among screen-detected cases is more likely due to stage shift rather than tumour biology.
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.