Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41642493›Full record

Trial reportBreast cancer research and treatment2026

Prognostic and predictive performance of PREDICT 2.1, PREDICT v3, and RSClin in node-negative early breast cancer: a TEAM pathology substudy.

Andréanne Leblanc, Ana-Alicia Beltran-Bless, Gregory R Pond, Khaled El Emam, Lamin Juwara, Lucas Clemons, Jane Bayani, Lisa Pilgram, Paul Pharoah, Elizabeth Mallon and 8 more

3 registry-linked trialsAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 3 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT00032136 phase3completednot on this map

An Open Label, Randomized Multicenter Comparative Trial Of 5 Years Adjuvant Exemestane Treatment Versus 5 Years Adjuvant Tamoxifen Treatment In Postmenopausal Women With Early Breast Cancer

TypeinterventionalSponsorCancer Research Campaign Clinical Trials CentreRan2001 to 2009Enrolled4,400ConditionsBreast CancerArmsexemestane, tamoxifen citrate, adjuvant therapy
NCT00036270 phase3completednot on this map

Randomized Phase III Study Of Exemestane (Aromasin) For 5 Years Versus Tamoxifen For 2.5- 3 Years Followed By Exemestane (Aromasin) For A Total Of 5 Years As Adjuvant Therapy For Postmenopausal, Receptor Positive, Node Negative or Node Positive Breast Cancer Patients

TypeinterventionalSponsorPfizerRan2001 to 2011Enrolled9,779ConditionsBreast NeoplasmsArmsexemestane (Aromasin), tamoxifen + exemestane
NCT00279448 phase3completednot on this map

Multicenter, Randomized, Open-Label Study To Compare The Efficacy, Tolerance And Quality Of Life Of 5 Years Of Adjuvant Exemestane (Aromasin) Therapy With 2.5 To 3 Years Of Adjuvant Tamoxifen Therapy, Followed By 2 To 2.5 Years Of Exemestane For A Total Duration Of 5 Years To Treat HR+ Post-Menopausal Patients With Non-Metastatic Breast Cancer

TypeinterventionalSponsorPfizerRan2002 to 2009Enrolled9,779ConditionsBreast NeoplasmsArmsexemestane, tamoxifen
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors.

Andréanne Leblanc *Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, The University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Ana-Alicia Beltran-Bless *Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, The University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Gregory R PondDepartment of Oncology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Khaled El EmamSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Lamin JuwaraSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Lucas ClemonsCancer Therapeutics Program, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Jane BayaniDiagnostic Development, Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Lisa PilgramSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Paul PharoahCedars-Sinai Medical Center, West Hollywood, CA, 90069, USA.
Elizabeth MallonDepartment of Pathology, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Karen J TaylorEdinburgh Cancer Research, CRUK Scotland Centre, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Christos MarkopoulosMedical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Luc DirixSt. Augustinus Hospital, Antwerp, Belgium.
Lisa VandermeerCancer Therapeutics Program, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
John HiltonDivision of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, The University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Marie France SavardDivision of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, The University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
John M S BartlettEdinburgh Cancer Research, CRUK Scotland Centre, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Mark ClemonsDivision of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, The University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. mclemons@toh.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite widespread use of clinico-pathologic and genomic risk scores in early breast cancer (EBC), questions remain as to whether they are predictive, prognostic, or both. We evaluated risk score performance with actual patient outcomes in a trial dataset.

methodsDiscrimination and calibration of PREDICT 2.1 and PREDICT v3 for overall survival (OS) and RSClin for distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) were compared with actual patient outcomes in 645 postmenopausal, node-negative, hormone-positive patients with EBC from the TEAM pathology substudy. Estimated chemotherapy benefit (low < 3%, moderate 3-5%, high > 5%) was also compared.

resultsHarrell's C-statistic for OS was 0.6893 and 0.6986 for PREDICT 2.1 and v3, and 0.6603 for DMFS using RSClin. PREDICT 2.1 underestimated and PREDICT v3 overestimated the 10-year OS. RSClin underestimated the 10-year DMFS. Of patients predicted by RSClin to derive a large benefit from chemotherapy, 44% and 99% were estimated to have a small (< 3%) benefit by PREDICT 2.1 and v3, respectively.

conclusionAll three scores demonstrated moderate discriminatory ability while PREDICT v3 and RSClin had better calibration. However, scores varied widely on expected benefit from chemotherapy, suggesting that RSClin is prognostic but not predictive of chemotherapy benefit. Given the cost of RSClin, further studies are required.

trial registrationThe trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT00279448, NCT00032136, and NCT00036270; NTR 267; Ethics Commission Trial 27/2001; and UMIN, C000000057.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsAgedFemaleHumansMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingPrognosisBreast cancerPREDICT 2.3PREDICT v3RSClin

Identifiers

PMID41642493

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.