ArticleBreast (Edinburgh, Scotland)2026
Belgian validation of the INFLUENCE 3.0 model predicting 5-year locoregional and contralateral breast cancer recurrence.
Article in Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland), 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBreast cancer (BC) surveillance primarily aims to detect locoregional recurrence (LRR) and contralateral breast cancer (CBC), but current strategies are largely one-size-fits-all and not tailored to individual risks. The Dutch INFLUENCE 3.0 prediction model provides personalised 5-year LRR and CBC risks to support shared decision-making on surveillance. In this study, INFLUENCE 3.0 is externally validated in a Belgian population.
methodsAll female BC patients curatively treated between 2000 and 2018 at the University Hospitals of Leuven were included. Calibration was assessed using the Integrated Calibration Index (ICI), E50, E90 metrics, and calibration plots. Discrimination was evaluated by calculating the Area Under the Curve (AUC) for each year, based on cumulative events up to that year.
resultsThe final Leuven cohort included 8548 patients, of whom 7549 were not treated with neoadjuvant systemic therapy (non-NST) and 999 were (NST). Calibration metrics were generally acceptable, with ICI and E50 values below 0.01 in most subgroups. Calibration plots showed overestimation of predicted risks, particularly at lower predicted risk levels. Discrimination for LRR risk was good to very good (AUC 0.72-0.86 in the non-NST group; >0.82 in the NST group). For CBC risk, discrimination was poor in the non-NST group (AUC ≈ 0.5) and moderate-to-very good in the NST group (AUC 0.68-0.88).
conclusionINFLUENCE 3.0 showed acceptable calibration and discrimination for LRR risk, and although CBC risk discrimination in the non-NST group was poor. The overall risk estimates - primarily the LRR risks - may still help in guiding tailored surveillance schemes.
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.