↓ Skip to main content

Use of Molecular Tools to Identify Patients With Indolent Breast Cancers With Ultralow Risk Over 2 Decades

Overview of attention for article published in JAMA Oncology, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#30 of 3,320)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
94 news outlets
blogs
6 blogs
twitter
171 X users
patent
3 patents
facebook
8 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
204 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
Use of Molecular Tools to Identify Patients With Indolent Breast Cancers With Ultralow Risk Over 2 Decades
Published in
JAMA Oncology, November 2017
DOI 10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.1261
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laura J. Esserman, Christina Yau, Carlie K. Thompson, Laura J. van 't Veer, Alexander D. Borowsky, Katherine A. Hoadley, Nicholas P. Tobin, Bo Nordenskjöld, Tommy Fornander, Olle Stål, Christopher C. Benz, Linda S. Lindström

Abstract

The frequency of cancers with indolent behavior has increased with screening. Better tools to identify indolent tumors are needed to avoid overtreatment. To determine if a multigene classifier is associated with indolent behavior of invasive breast cancers in women followed for 2 decades. This is a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial of tamoxifen vs no systemic therapy, with more than 20-year follow-up. An indolent threshold (ultralow risk) of the US Food and Drug Administration-cleared MammaPrint 70-gene expression score was established above which no breast cancer deaths occurred after 15 years in the absence of systemic therapy. Immunohistochemical markers (n = 727 women) and Agilent microarrays, for MammaPrint risk scoring (n = 652 women), were performed from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded primary tumor blocks. Participants were postmenopausal women with clinically detected node-negative breast cancers treated with mastectomy or lumpectomy and radiation enrolled in the Stockholm tamoxifen (STO-3) trial, 1976 to 1990. After 2 years of tamoxifen vs no systemic therapy, regardless of hormone receptor status, patients without relapse who reconsented were further randomized to 3 additional years or none. Breast cancer-specific survival assessed by Kaplan-Meier analyses and multivariate Cox proportional hazard modeling, adjusted for treatment, patient age, year of diagnosis, tumor size, grade, hormone receptors, and ERBB2/HER2 and Ki67 status. In this secondary analysis of node-negative postmenopausal women, conducted in the era before mammography screening, among the 652 women with MammaPrint scoring available (median age, 62.8 years of age), 377 (58%) and 275 (42%) were MammaPrint low and high risk, respectively, while 98 (15%) were ultralow risk. At 20 years, women with 70-gene high and low tumors but not ultralow tumors had a significantly higher risk of disease-specific death compared with ultralow-risk patients by Cox analysis (hazard ratios, 4.73 [95% CI, 1.38-16.22] and 4.54 [95% CI, 1.40-14.80], respectively). There were no deaths in the ultralow-risk tamoxifen-treated arm at 15 years, and these patients had a 20-year disease-specific survival rate of 97%, whereas for untreated patients the survival rate was 94%. Recursive partitioning identified ultralow risk as the most significant predictor of good outcome. In tumors "not ultralow risk," tumor size greater than 2 cm was the most predictive of outcome. The ultralow-risk threshold of the 70-gene MammaPrint assay can identify patients whose long-term systemic risk of death from breast cancer after surgery alone is exceedingly low.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 171 X users 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 204 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 204 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 30 15%
Researcher 28 14%
Student > Master 23 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 10%
Student > Bachelor 19 9%
Other 28 14%
Unknown 55 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 63 31%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 21 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 5%
Computer Science 3 1%
Other 21 10%
Unknown 70 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 860. 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 19 December 2023.
All research outputs
#20,955
of 25,507,011 outputs
Outputs from JAMA Oncology
#30
of 3,320 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#359
of 341,126 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA Oncology
#2
of 105 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,507,011 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,320 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 84.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
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 341,126 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 105 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.