↓ Skip to main content

Are There Breast Cancer Patients with Node-Negative Small Tumours, Who Do Not Benefit from Adjuvant Systemic Therapy?

Overview of attention for article published in Oncology (08909091), March 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1 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
Are There Breast Cancer Patients with Node-Negative Small Tumours, Who Do Not Benefit from Adjuvant Systemic Therapy?
Published in
Oncology (08909091), March 2017
DOI 10.1159/000455050
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tanja Stüber, Igor Novopashenny, Joachim Diessner, Catharina Bartmann, Roland Stein, Mathias Krockenberger, Sebastian Häusler, Wolfgang Janni, Rolf Kreienberg, Maria Blettner, Achim Wöckel, Manfred Wischnewsky

Abstract

To identify subgroups of patients with pT1 pN0 breast cancer (BC) who might not profit from adjuvant systemic therapy (AST). Data of 3,774 pT1 pN0 BC patients from 17 certified BC centres within the BRENDA study group were collected between 1992 and 2008 and retrospectively analysed. Uni- and multivariate analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox regression models. 279 (7.4%) of the pT1 pN0 BC patients were T1a, 944 (25.0%) were T1b and 2,551 (67.6%) were T1c. There was no significant difference (p > 0.1) in recurrence-free survival (RFS)/overall survival (OAS) between patients with pT1a, pT1b, and T1c. Patients receiving any type of AST had a better outcome compared to women without AST after adjusting for age, tumour size, and intrinsic subtypes (RFS: p < 0.001; OAS: p < 0.001). AST was the most important prognostic parameter for RFS followed by intrinsic subtypes and age. Patients with pT1 pN0 BC profit from AST independently of molecular subtypes, tumour size, age or comorbidity, with 5-year RFS of more than 95%. The correct definition of subgroups of patients who do not need AST is still an open question.

Twitter Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1 Mendeley reader of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 1 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 100%
Student > Bachelor 1 100%
Researcher 1 100%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 200%
Sports and Recreations 1 100%

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 24 March 2017.
All research outputs
#8,010,579
of 9,240,924 outputs
Outputs from Oncology (08909091)
#597
of 803 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#219,218
of 260,024 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oncology (08909091)
#7
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,240,924 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 803 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 260,024 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.