ReviewEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2004
Biomolecular features of clinical relevance in breast cancer.
Review in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease and its consequent complexity is a major challenge for physicians and biologists. Notwithstanding its potential curability due to the availability of treatment modalities which are effective in the presence of favourable clinical or pathobiological features, there is still a great deal of controversy over its clinical management. In recent decades, tumour biomarkers that are indicative of or related to cell traits characterising malignancy--that is self-sufficiency in proliferative growth signals, insensitivity to growth inhibitory signals, evasion of apoptosis, limitless replicative potential, and activation of pathways leading to neo-angiogenesis, invasion and metastasis--have provided information that has been proven to be associated with disease progression. However, when these biomarkers have been analysed individually, their prognostic relevance has been found to be modest, the only remaining clinically useful biomarkers being cell proliferation and plasminogen activation-related factors for prognosis, and steroid hormone receptors and the oncogene HER2/neu for prediction of response to hormonal therapy or to the novel targeted anti-HER2/neu therapy. It therefore remains necessary to reduce the intrinsic complexity of breast cancer in order to improve its clinical outcome. One way to achieve this objective derives directly from the concept that cancer is a genetic disease at the somatic level and from the recent availability of high-throughput post-genomic analytical tools such as gene and protein expression techniques for global gene expression analysis. Following these novel approaches, a number of recent studies have produced gene expression profiles in breast cancer that are markedly associated with disease progression and directed to answer different clinical and biological questions. However, the outcome of these novel studies still needs to be validated, which will entail cooperation between different specialists and integration of all the different skills involved in translational research in oncology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.