ArticleBreast cancer research : BCR2025
External validation of precisebreast, a digital prognostic test for predicting breast cancer recurrence, in an early-stage cohort from the Netherlands.
Article in Breast cancer research : BCR, 2025. 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCurrent clinical guidelines recommend gene expression profiling to guide treatment in early-stage breast cancer. PreciseBreast (PDxBR) is a digital prognostic tool that integrates artificial intelligence (AI)-derived features from hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) slides with clinicopathologic data to predict recurrence risk. This study externally validated PDxBR in an independent cohort and compared its performance to other risk models.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed PDxBR in a cohort of 739 patients with early-stage hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer (median follow-up of 8.8 years). For each case, one H&E-stained slide was digitized and analyzed to generate recurrence risk scores using the full PDxBR model, as well as image-only and clinical-only variants. A subset of patients who underwent MammaPrint testing was also evaluated. Model performance was assessed by AUC/C-index, hazard ratios, sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive values (NPV and PPV, respectively).
resultsPDxBR showed prognostic accuracy in this external cohort (AUC/C-index 0.71, 95% CI: 0.66-0.75). Applying the PDxBR threshold (≥ 58 versus < 58) yielded a hazard ratio of 3.05 (95% CI: 2.1-4.4, p < 0.001), sensitivity 0.70, specificity 0.59, NPV 0.90, and PPV 0.27. PDxBR outperformed the modified Adjuvant! Online clinical model (MINDACT model, p < 0.00001) and effectively reclassified grade 2 tumors into distinct risk groups.
conclusionsPDxBR demonstrated robust prognostic performance in an independent cohort, supporting its potential as a scalable, reproducible alternative to genomic assays for individualized risk stratification in early-stage breast cancer.
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.