The Prognosis and Clinicopathological Characteristics of Metaplastic Breast Cancer: A Meta-Analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Due to the rarity of metaplastic breast cancer (MBC), the prognosis and clinicopathologic-al characteristics of MBC patients are still inconclusive. Large-sample retrospective analysis is still lacking at present.This study aims to conduct a meta-analysis of relevant literature on MBC at home and abroad to obtain the prognostic and clinicopathological characteristics of MBC.Methods: Cohort studies or case-control studies comparing MBC and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) were searched through the internet, and the quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS). A total of 9 studies with NOS scores of > 6 were included. Meta-analysis was performed using the Review Manager 5.3 provided by the Cochrane Collaboration Network. The hazard ratio (HR) evaluate the disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS), and the odds ratio (OR) was used to evaluate clinicopathological characteristics, including age, tumor diameter, lymph node metastasis status, distant metastasis status, TNM staging, and histological grade. According to the heterogeneity of the included studies, random effects model or fixed effects model was used.Results: Compared with TNBC patients, the HR value for 5-year DFS and 5-year OS of MBC patients was 1.64 (95%CI: 1.36-1.98) and 1.52 (95%CI: 1.27-1.81), respectively. The total OR value for age> 50 years old, tumor diameter ≤ 2cm, lymph node positive, distant metastasis, TNM stage III and above, and histological grade 3 was 1.63 (95%CI: 1.45-1.84), 0.29 (95% CI: 0.14-0.58), 0.68 (95%CI: 0.53-0.88), 1.59 (95%CI: 0.89-2.81), 1.49 (95 %CI: 0.80-2.77), and 2.25 (95%CI: 0.85-5.97), respectively.Conclusion: MBC patients are less likely to have lymph node metastasis and had worse DFS and OS than TNBC patients, which may be related to the pathological characteristics of MBC patients being related to sarcoma. But this also requires verification and further research with large sample sizes. In addition, there were no statistical differences in distant metastasis, TNM staging, and histological grade between MBC and TNBC patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.050 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".