Evidence mapPaperPMID 29475920Full record

ArticleIn vivo (Athens, Greece)

The Difference in Prognostic Outcomes Between

Jun Yamamura, Shunji Kamigaki, Junya Fujita, Hiroki Osato, Yoshifumi Komoike

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in In vivo (Athens, Greece). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Real-world application ofEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026
    Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. The prognostic value of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio inAnnals of translational medicine · 2023
    Article
  14. HRDrugs in context · 2023
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

5 authors.

Jun YamamuraDepartment of Surgery, Sakai City Medical Center, Osaka, Japan june10th68@gmail.com.
Shunji KamigakiDepartment of Surgery, Sakai City Medical Center, Osaka, Japan.
Junya FujitaDepartment of Surgery, Sakai City Medical Center, Osaka, Japan.
Hiroki OsatoDepartment of Surgery, Sakai City Medical Center, Osaka, Japan.
Yoshifumi KomoikeSection of Breast and Endocrine Surgery, Department of Surgery, Kindai University Faculty of Medicine, Sayama, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

aimPatients with de novo stage IV and recurrent metastatic breast cancer are often treated with the same strategies, although the difference in prognostic outcomes remains unclear. The objective of this retrospective chart review study was to compare the prognostic outcomes between two types of patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), HER2-negative (HER2-) breast cancer. PATIENTS AND

methodsWe estimated overall survival of the two groups and evaluated the progressive course of the disease using disease-free interval (DFI) and interval from the end of adjuvant treatment to the first recurrence (AFI).

resultsWe studied 172 patients with HR+/HER2- breast cancer, of which 65 were de novo and 107 were recurrent. Median OS between de novo and recurrent BC was 4.85 and 3.45 years, respectively (p=0.046). Recurrent patients with a DFI<2 years were found to have a significantly poorer prognosis than recurrent patients with a DFI≥2 years (p=0.016) and de novo patients (p=0.002). Similarly, recurrent patients with an AFI<1 year had a significantly poorer prognosis compared to de novo patients (p=0.026).

conclusionDe novo patients had better prognoses than recurrent patients with DFI<2 years or AFI<1 year, likely due to their therapy-naïve status or lower resistance to systemic treatment.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorAdultAgedBreast NeoplasmsErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesFemaleHumansMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingNeoplasm MetastasisNeoplasm StagingPrognosisProportional Hazards ModelsReceptors, EstrogenReceptors, ProgesteroneRecurrenceBiomarkers, TumorErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesReceptors, EstrogenReceptors, ProgesteroneBreast cancerde novo stage IV patientsHER2-negativeHR-positiverecurrent

Identifiers

PMID29475920
PMCPMC5905205

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.