ArticleMethods of information in medicine2025
Clustering Breast Cancer Patients Based on Their Treatment Courses Using German Cancer Registry Data.
Article in Methods of information in medicine, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cancer registries collect extensive data on cancer patients, including diagnoses, treatments, and disease progression. These data offer valuable insights into cancer care, but it is challenging to analyze due to its complexity. Machine learning techniques, particularly clustering, enable the exploration of treatment data to uncover previously unknown patterns and relationships.This work aimed to develop a method for clustering breast cancer patients in cancer registries based on their treatment courses, to demonstrate the usefulness of clustering for gaining insights, improving data quality, and identifying clinically relevant patterns.We developed a similarity measure adapted from the Levenshtein distance to compare treatment courses, incorporating cancer diagnosis, surgeries, radiotherapies, and systemic therapies. The method was evaluated on 17,822 breast cancer cases diagnosed in 2019 from the cancer registry of North Rhine-Westphalia. Evaluation involved two stages: first, domain experts reviewed the clustering results to assess clinical relevance and interpretability. Second, an intercluster survival analysis was performed to identify clinically relevant differences between treatment patterns.Expert evaluations confirmed that clustering produced clinically plausible groups while also uncovering unexpected treatment patterns and potential data inconsistencies. The survival analysis showed differences in survival between clusters in both prognostically favorable and unfavorable subgroups. These results demonstrate that treatment-course clustering can identify patient groups with differing survival outcomes. However, registry data incompleteness and unmeasured confounders may influence these findings.Clustering treatment courses in cancer registries can reveal data quality issues, distinguish groups with different prognostic profiles, and support exploratory analyses of treatment patterns. While these findings are not intended to guide clinical decision making or evaluate treatment effectiveness, they can help generate hypotheses, identify unexpected care pathways, and support quality monitoring within cancer registries. Future work should focus on improving treatment data completeness, incorporating additional clinical variables, and refining clustering methods for broader applicability.
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.