ArticleBreast cancer research : BCR2026
PREDICT v3.0 outperforms v2.2 in young (25-40 years) breast cancer patients according to real-world data from a large Swedish population-based registry.
Article in Breast cancer research : BCR, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPREDICT is a widely used prognostic tool supporting treatment decisions in breast cancer care. As v3.0 was recently released, we performed an external validation of PREDICT v2.2 and v3.0 in young (≤ 40 years) breast cancer patients.
methodsWe included Swedish non-metastatic breast cancer patients aged ≤ 40 years, diagnosed between 2008–2019, from a registry-based research database. Outcomes were all-cause and breast cancer-specific mortality (BCSM) at 5- and 10-years, in all and in prespecified patient subgroups (by molecular subtype and nodal status). Model calibration and discrimination were evaluated by the integrated calibration index (ICI) and time dependant area under the receiver operator curve (tdAUC), respectively.
resultsIn total, 3015 patients were included. PREDICT v2.2 consistently overestimated both all-cause mortality and BCSM at 5- (ICI all-cause mortality = 5.10%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.93–5.27; ICIBCSM = 4.91%, 95% CI 4.71–5.13) and 10- years (ICI all-cause mortality = 9.75%, 95% CI 9.02%–10.5, ICIBCSM = 9.71%, 95% CI 8.88–10.4). In contrast, PREDICT v3.0 showed much better calibration (5 years; ICI all-cause mortality = 0.69%, 95% CI 0.60–0.78; ICIBCSM = 0.65%, 95% CI 0.57– 0.73; 10 years; ICI all-cause mortality = 5.10%, 95% CI 4.65–5.5%; ICIBCSM = 4.76%, 95% CI 4.31–5.19), although miscalibration remained in high-risk groups. Discrimination was excellent for predicting 5-year outcomes in both models but declined for 10-year predictions.
conclusionsPREDICT showed good discrimination in young patients. Although version 3.0 showed better calibration than v2.2, risk overestimation in high-risk patients may affect treatment decision-making and warrants cautious interpretation.
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.