↓ Skip to main content

Do alternative methods of measuring tumor size, including consideration of multicentric/multifocal disease, enhance prognostic information beyond TNM staging in women with early stage breast cancer…

Overview of attention for article published in Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, October 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Do alternative methods of measuring tumor size, including consideration of multicentric/multifocal disease, enhance prognostic information beyond TNM staging in women with early stage breast cancer: an analysis of the NCIC CTG MA.5 and MA.12 clinical trials
Published in
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, October 2013
DOI 10.1007/s10549-013-2714-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

J. F. Hilton, N. Bouganim, B. Dong, J. W. Chapman, A. Arnaout, F. O’Malley, K. A. Gelmon, R. Yerushalmi, M. N. Levine, V. H. C. Bramwell, T. J. Whelan, K. I. Pritchard, L. E. Shepherd, M. Clemons

Abstract

The AJCC staging criteria consider tumor size to be the largest dimension of largest tumor. Some case series suggest using summation of all tumor dimensions in patients with multicentric/multifocal (MC/MF) disease. We used data from NCIC CTG MA.5 and MA.12 clinical trials to examine alternative methods of assessing tumor size on breast-cancer-free-interval (BCFI). The 710 MA.5 pre-/peri-menopausal node positive and 672 MA.12 pre-menopausal node-negative/-positive patients have 10-year median follow-up. All patients received adjuvant chemotherapy. Tumors were centrally reviewed for grade, hormone receptor, and HER2 status. Continuous pathologic tumor size was: (1) largest dimension of largest tumor (cm); (2) tumor area (cm(2)); (3) volume of tumor (cm(3)); (4) with MC/MF disease, summation of (1)-(3) for up to 3 foci. We examined univariate and multivariate effects of tumor size on BCFI utilizing (un)stratified Cox regression and the Wald test statistic. In univariate analysis, larger tumor dimension was significantly associated with worse BFCI in node positive patients: p < 0.0001 for MA.5; p = 0.01 for MA.12. In MA.5 multivariate analysis, larger summation of largest tumor dimensions was associated with worse BCFI (p = 0.0003), while larger single dimension was associated with worse BCFI (p = 0.02) for MA.12. Presence of MC/MF and other tumor size measurements were not associated (p > 0.05) with BFCI. While physicians could consider the largest diameter of the largest focus of disease or the sum of the largest diameters of all foci in their T-stage determination, it appears that the current method of T-staging offers equivalent determinations of prognosis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 19%
Researcher 3 19%
Student > Master 3 19%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Lecturer 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 4 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 6%
Neuroscience 1 6%
Chemistry 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 October 2013.
All research outputs
#18,351,676
of 22,727,570 outputs
Outputs from Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
#3,713
of 4,648 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,693
of 210,284 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
#50
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,727,570 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,648 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 210,284 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.