ArticleESMO open2026
Validation of PREDICT tool v2.2 in patients with early-stage breast cancer enrolled in the GIM and MIG trials.
Article in ESMO open, 2026. 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPREDICT v2.2 is a prognostic tool used to estimate 5- and 10-year overall survival (OS) rates in early-stage breast cancer (BC). While it has been validated in several populations, limited data exist on its performance in cohorts derived from randomized clinical trials. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study analyzed individual data from patients with early-stage BC enrolled in five phase III randomized clinical trials conducted by the Gruppo Italiano Mammella (GIM) and Mammella InterGruppo (MIG) between 1992 and 2012. Patients with stage IV disease, prior neoadjuvant therapy, or missing data were excluded. PREDICT v2.2 was used to calculate 5- and 10-year OS predictions. Observed survival was derived using Kaplan-Meier estimates, and the model's calibration and discriminatory accuracy were evaluated.
resultsAmong the 6205 patents included, the median predicted 5-year OS was 87.1%, while the observed 5-year OS was 93.0%, resulting in an underestimation of 5.6% [95% confidence interval (CI) 5.0% to 6.3%]. Similarly, the predicted 10-year OS was 73.8%, compared with an observed OS of 82.1%, with an underestimation of 8.3% (95% CI 7.2% to 9.4%). Discrimination was moderate, with area under the curve values of 66.2% (95% CI 63.5% to 68.9%) at 5 years and 63.9% (95% CI 61.7% to 66.1%) at 10 years. Subgroup analyses revealed that underestimations were more pronounced in patients with human epidermal growth factor 2-positive tumors, larger tumor sizes, or older age.
conclusionsPREDICT v2.2 underestimates 5- and 10-year OS in a clinical trial-derived population of early-stage BC patients. Despite reasonable accuracy, its performance is influenced by specific patient and tumor characteristics. Regular updates are necessary to ensure its applicability in contemporary clinical practice.
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.