ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2022
The natural history of breast cancer: a chronological analysis of breast cancer progression using data from the SEER database.
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Natural history and prognostic nomogram of untreated triple negative breast cancer based on SEER database.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Onco-Breastomics: An Eco-Evo-Devo Holistic Approach.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Natural History and Prognostic Model of Untreated Papillary Thyroid Cancer: A SEER Database Analysis.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Numerous mathematical models and retrospective analyses have been conducted to explore the natural progression of breast cancer, but there is no precise timeline as to how long it takes breast cancer to progress from stages 0 to IV. Studying the natural history of breast cancer requires the follow-up of a large cohort of patients who received no treatment following diagnosis for a long period, but this has become unpractical in the modern era. In this study, we quantified the natural progression of breast cancer using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database which was collected the clinical-pathological characteristics and survival data of untreated breast cancer patients. Methods: We included 12,687 female patients who did not receive surgical treatment, radiotherapy, or chemotherapy, had complete information on tumor staging, and had only 1 primary tumor in their lifetime in our study as the untreated group. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from the date of the latest diagnosis of breast cancer to the date of death. Medium survival time (MST) was defined as the time at which 50% of the patients reached the endpoint. The medium survival time (MST) was calculated for each stage. The progression time was calculated by subtracting the MST of a higher stage from that of a lower stage, which also indicated "life loss". Estrogen receptor (ER) negative and positive patients were analyzed as two separate groups. Results: For the ER positive patients, the median progression times from stages 0 to I, I to II, II to III, and III to IV were 5.2±1.2, 4.2±0.5, 2±0.3, and 0.9±0.2 years, respectively, which were similar to those of the ER negative patients of 5.4±2.9, 4.7±1.3, 2.5±0.7, and 1.1±0.4 years (P=0.49). The survival of stage IV patients was longer in ER positive patients than ER negative patients (2.7±0.1 Conclusions: ER negative patients appear to have the same progression time as that of ER positive patients in the primary site, but had a much worse process in the metastasis site.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.