Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36789739›Full record

ArticleCancer2023

Variation in second breast cancer risk after primary invasive cancer by time since primary cancer diagnosis and estrogen receptor status.

Kathryn P Lowry, Laura Ichikawa, Rebecca A Hubbard, Diana S M Buist, Erin J A Bowles, Louise M Henderson, Karla Kerlikowske, Jennifer M Specht, Brian L Sprague, Karen J Wernli and 1 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Patterns of Subsequent Cancer Incidence Over Time in Patients with Breast Cancer.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

11 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Kathryn P LowryDepartment of Radiology, University of Washington, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Washington, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0840-7855
Laura IchikawaKaiser Permanente Washington, Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Rebecca A HubbardDepartment of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Diana S M BuistKaiser Permanente Washington, Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Erin J A BowlesKaiser Permanente Washington, Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6287-7391
Louise M HendersonDepartment of Radiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8356-9267
Karla KerlikowskeDepartments of Medicine and Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.
Jennifer M SpechtDivision of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Brian L SpragueUniversity of Vermont Cancer Center, University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine, Burlington, Vermont, USA.
Karen J WernliKaiser Permanente Washington, Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7945-0327
Janie M LeeDepartment of Radiology, University of Washington, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute · USUniversity of Washington · USSeattle Cancer Care Alliance · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · USUniversity of Vermont · US

Funding

Risk-based Imaging Strategies to Improve Breast Cancer Surveillance OutcomesP01CA154292 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI Diana L Miglioretti · 2011 to 2026
$52.9M
Vermont Screening Process Documentation UnitU54CA163303 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT & ST AGRIC COLLEGE · PI SPRAGUE, BRIAN L · 2011 to 2017
$6.4M
Comparative effectiveness of breast imaging modalities: a natural experimentR01HS018366 · AHRQ · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO · PI RAUSCHER, GARTH H · 2010 to 2014
$1.8M
Group Health Cancer Research Program Research Specialist AwardR50CA211115 · NCI · KAISER FOUNDATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI BOWLES, ERIN JANELLE AIELLO · 2017 to 2021
$919k
AHRQ HHS R01 HS018366NCI NIH HHS P01 CA154292NCI NIH HHS P01CA154292NCI NIH HHS R50 CA211115NCI NIH HHS R50CA211115NCI NIH HHS U54 CA163303NCI NIH HHS U54CA163303
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn women with previously treated breast cancer, occurrence and timing of second breast cancers have implications for surveillance. The authors examined the timing of second breast cancers by primary cancer estrogen receptor (ER) status in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

methodsWomen who were diagnosed with American Joint Commission on Cancer stage I-III breast cancer were identified within six Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries from 2000 to 2017. Characteristics collected at primary breast cancer diagnosis included demographics, ER status, and treatment. Second breast cancer events included subsequent ipsilateral or contralateral breast cancers diagnosed >6 months after primary diagnosis. The authors examined cumulative incidence and second breast cancer rates by primary cancer ER status during 1-5 versus 6-10 years after diagnosis.

resultsAt 10 years, the cumulative second breast cancer incidence was 11.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 10.7%-13.1%) for women with ER-negative disease and 7.5% (95% CI, 7.0%-8.0%) for those with ER-positive disease. Women with ER-negative cancer had higher second breast cancer rates than those with ER-positive cancer during the first 5 years of follow-up (16.0 per 1000 person-years [PY]; 95% CI, 14.2-17.9 per 1000 PY; vs. 7.8 per 1000 PY; 95% CI, 7.3-8.4 per 1000 PY, respectively). After 5 years, second breast cancer rates were similar for women with ER-negative versus ER-positive breast cancer (12.1 per 1000 PY; 95% CI, 9.9-14.7; vs. 9.3 per 1000 PY; 95% CI, 8.4-10.3 per 1000 PY, respectively).

conclusionsER-negative primary breast cancers are associated with a higher risk of second breast cancers than ER-positive cancers during the first 5 years after diagnosis. Further study is needed to examine the potential benefit of more intensive surveillance targeting these women in the early postdiagnosis period.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsNeoplasms, Second PrimaryBreastFemaleHumansReceptors, EstrogenRisk FactorsReceptors, Estrogenbreast cancerestrogen receptorrecurrencesurveillancesurvivorship

Identifiers

PMID36789739
PMCPMC10409444
OpenAlexW4320857806

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.