ArticleClinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico2026
External validation of a nomogram for de novo bone metastasis in breast cancer: a single-center Mexican cohort.
Article in Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico, 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
purposeAccurate identification of breast cancer patients at risk of de novo bone metastasis (BM) may support staging and treatment planning. The current study externally validated a previously published nomogram in a Mexican cohort of women with newly diagnosed breast cancer.
methodsA retrospective external validation study was conducted in women diagnosed at a tertiary referral cancer center in Mexico during 2023. Model performance was evaluated through discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility. Discrimination was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) and precision-recall curve (AUC-PR). Calibration was evaluated using calibration intercept and slope, calibration plots, and logistic recalibration. Decision curve analysis assessed clinical utility. A sensitivity analysis excluding surgery status was also performed.
resultsThe validation cohort included 293 patients, of whom 11 (3.8%) presented with de novo bone metastasis. The original model demonstrated moderate discrimination (AUC-ROC 0.81, 95% CI 0.67-0.96; AUC-PR 0.32, 95% CI 0.05-0.66). In the sensitivity analysis, AUC-ROC remained similar (0.80; 95% CI 0.66-0.95), whereas AUC-PR decreased to 0.23 (95% CI 0.03-0.52). Calibration was suboptimal, with a calibration intercept of -2.99 and a slope of 0.90, indicating systematic overestimation of risk. Recalibration improved agreement between predicted and observed risks. Clinical utility was comparable across models, with modest improvements after recalibration.
conclusionsThe nomogram maintained reasonable discrimination but exhibited substantial calibration drift in this independent Mexican cohort. External validation and recalibration may be necessary before implementation in populations distinct from those used for model development.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42400767What 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.