ArticleInternational journal of women's health2025
Prognostic Value of Distant Micrometastasis in Breast Cancer: A Population-Based Propensity Score-Matched Study.
Article in International journal of women's health, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Distant micrometastasis of breast cancer [M0(i+)] is an emerging metastatic stage that has not yet received widespread attention. This study aimed to compare M0(i+) patients with traditional M0 patients and to evaluate the prognostic value of M0(i+). Methods: Using data from the SEER database (2018-2022), we identified 283,503 M0 patients and 585 M0(i+) patients. Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to control for confounding factors in intergroup comparisons. Overall survival (OS) and breast cancer-specific mortality (BCSM) were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method, Cox regression analysis, the cumulative incidence function (CIF), and the Fine-Gray competing risk model. Results: After matching, no statistically significant differences were observed between the M0(i+) and M0 groups in either OS or BCSM (OS: HR=0.803, P=0.369; BCSM: HR=1.273, P=0.450). Nevertheless, the M0(i+) group showed a slightly worse survival trend in BCSM, while demonstrating a survival advantage in OS. This advantage may be influenced by the higher proportion of non-cancer-related deaths in this group. Conclusion: The prognosis of M0(i+) patients is similar to that of M0 patients, supporting the rationale for combining the two stages in the AJCC staging system. Although the differences did not reach statistical significance, M0(i+) may still carry potential adverse prognostic implications. In light of prior literature, further refinement of the M0(i+) classification should be considered, with particular attention to the prognostic role of bone marrow micrometastasis.
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.