ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Age-related prognoses in a Luxembourgish breast cancer cohort.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Breast cancer (BC) is the most common cancer among women worldwide, and age significantly influences prognosis. In July 2024, Luxembourg expanded BC screening programme (Programme Mammographie, PM), changing the eligible age from 50-69 to 45-74 years. This study assessed age-related BC prognosis before expansion. Methods: This retrospective cohort study analysed 3,003 women diagnosed with invasive BC in Luxembourg (2013-2018) using National Cancer Registry data. Patients were stratified into four age groups: <40, 40-49, 50-69, and ≥70 years. Tumour characteristics, treatment, and five-year overall survival (OS) were compared across groups using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards models. Results: Younger patients (<40 years) showed higher triple-negative tumours (24%, P<0.001) and chemotherapy use (78%). Five-year OS varied by age group, with the highest rates in women aged 40-49 (95.3%) and 50-69 (92.3%), followed by those <40 (91.0%), and lower survival in women ≥70 (65.4%) (P<0.001), a finding that partly reflects competing causes of mortality in this age group rather than BC prognosis alone. Screen-detected cases had better survival (95.8%). Advanced stage (hazard ratio [HR]=2.92, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.05-4.17) and triple-negative subtype (HR = 2.39, 95% CI: 1.69-3.38) linked to worse prognosis. Mastectomy (HR = 2.04) and absence of surgery (HR = 8.58) were associated with poorer survival, likely reflecting disease complexity rather than causal treatment effects. Conclusion: Age at diagnosis influences BC prognosis through distinct tumour characteristics, including molecular subtype, histology, clinical stage, and mode of detection, which collectively impact treatment and survival. Women aged 40-49 and 50-69 achieved the most favourable survival outcomes. Among women in the established screening target group (50-69 years), early detection through organised mammography was associated with particularly high survival, reinforcing the value of standardised early detection in this group. Younger patients presented with more aggressive tumour biology, while older patients showed lower OS, an estimate that substantially reflects competing causes of death, including cardiovascular disease and other malignancies, in addition to any BC-attributable mortality disadvantage. These findings establish a baseline for evaluating expanded PM and highlight the need for age-specific strategies.
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.