ArticleCancers2025
Discrepancies Between the Tennessee Nomogram and Oncotype DX: Implications for the Korean Breast Cancer Population-The BRAIN Study.
Article in Cancers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOncotype DX (ODX) is widely used to estimate recurrence risk and guide adjuvant therapy in hormone receptor-positive (HR+), HER2-negative early-stage breast cancer. However, limited accessibility and high costs have prompted the use of alternative clinical models, such as the Tennessee nomogram. This study aimed to validate the predictive performance of the Tennessee nomogram in a Korean breast cancer cohort and identify factors contributing to discrepancies between nomogram predictions and ODX results.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed data on1298 patients with HR+/HER2-, node-negative invasive breast cancer who underwent ODX testing between May 2013 and August 2023. Predictive probabilities were calculated using the Tennessee nomogram and compared with actual ODX recurrence scores. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and area under the curve (AUC) were determined. Discordant cases were examined for clinicopathologic characteristics contributing to prediction errors.
resultsThe nomogram demonstrated an overall accuracy of 86.1% (sensitivity 0.130, specificity 0.989, AUC 0.776). Discordant results were observed in 13.9% of cases, primarily in patients with a high histologic grade, PR negativity, and elevated Ki-67 index. Most false negatives clustered within the ODX score range of 25-30, suggesting underestimation of risk in borderline-high cases.
conclusionsThe Tennessee nomogram may be a useful surrogate when ODX testing is unavailable, but caution is warranted in patients with aggressive tumor biology. In such cases, ODX testing should be prioritized to guide adjuvant therapy decisions.
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.