Prognostic models for breast cancer: a systematic review.

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Phung, Minh Tung en
dc.contributor.author Tin Tin, Sandar en
dc.contributor.author Elwood, James en
dc.date.accessioned 2019-06-14T02:03:03Z en
dc.date.issued 2019-03-14 en
dc.identifier.citation BMC cancer 19(1):230 14 Mar 2019 en
dc.identifier.issn 1471-2407 en
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/2292/47036 en
dc.description.abstract BACKGROUND:Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women worldwide, with a great diversity in outcomes among individual patients. The ability to accurately predict a breast cancer outcome is important to patients, physicians, researchers, and policy makers. Many models have been developed and tested in different settings. We systematically reviewed the prognostic models developed and/or validated for patients with breast cancer. METHODS:We conducted a systematic search in four electronic databases and some oncology websites, and a manual search in the bibliographies of the included studies. We identified original studies that were published prior to 1st January 2017, and presented the development and/or validation of models based mainly on clinico-pathological factors to predict mortality and/or recurrence in female breast cancer patients. RESULTS:From the 96 articles selected from 4095 citations found, we identified 58 models, which predicted mortality (n = 28), recurrence (n = 23), or both (n = 7). The most frequently used predictors were nodal status (n = 49), tumour size (n = 42), tumour grade (n = 29), age at diagnosis (n = 24), and oestrogen receptor status (n = 21). Models were developed in Europe (n = 25), Asia (n = 13), North America (n = 12), and Australia (n = 1) between 1982 and 2016. Models were validated in the development cohorts (n = 43) and/or independent populations (n = 17), by comparing the predicted outcomes with the observed outcomes (n = 55) and/or with the outcomes estimated by other models (n = 32), or the outcomes estimated by individual prognostic factors (n = 8). The most commonly used methods were: Cox proportional hazards regression for model development (n = 32); the absolute differences between the predicted and observed outcomes (n = 30) for calibration; and C-index/AUC (n = 44) for discrimination. Overall, the models performed well in the development cohorts but less accurately in some independent populations, particularly in patients with high risk and young and elderly patients. An exception is the Nottingham Prognostic Index, which retains its predicting ability in most independent populations. CONCLUSIONS:Many prognostic models have been developed for breast cancer, but only a few have been validated widely in different settings. Importantly, their performance was suboptimal in independent populations, particularly in patients with high risk and in young and elderly patients. en
dc.format.medium Electronic en
dc.language eng en
dc.relation.ispartofseries BMC cancer en
dc.rights Items in ResearchSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated. Previously published items are made available in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. en
dc.rights.uri https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/docs/uoa-docs/rights.htm en
dc.rights.uri https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ en
dc.subject Humans en
dc.subject Breast Neoplasms en
dc.subject Receptors, Estrogen en
dc.subject Prognosis en
dc.subject Tumor Burden en
dc.subject Proportional Hazards Models en
dc.subject Age of Onset en
dc.subject Models, Theoretical en
dc.subject North America en
dc.subject Asia en
dc.subject Australia en
dc.subject Europe en
dc.subject Female en
dc.subject Neoplasm Grading en
dc.title Prognostic models for breast cancer: a systematic review. en
dc.type Journal Article en
dc.identifier.doi 10.1186/s12885-019-5442-6 en
pubs.issue 1 en
pubs.begin-page 230 en
pubs.volume 19 en
dc.rights.holder Copyright: The authors en
pubs.publication-status Published en
dc.rights.accessrights http://purl.org/eprint/accessRights/OpenAccess en
pubs.subtype research-article en
pubs.subtype Systematic Review en
pubs.subtype Journal Article en
pubs.elements-id 766846 en
pubs.org-id Medical and Health Sciences en
pubs.org-id Population Health en
pubs.org-id Epidemiology & Biostatistics en
dc.identifier.eissn 1471-2407 en
pubs.record-created-at-source-date 2019-03-16 en
pubs.dimensions-id 30871490 en


Files in this item

Find Full text

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Share

Search ResearchSpace


Browse

Statistics