Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16608533›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2006

Genomic alterations identified by array comparative genomic hybridization as prognostic markers in tamoxifen-treated estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer.

Wonshik Han, Mi-Ryung Han, Jason Jongho Kang, Ji-Yeon Bae, Ji Hyun Lee, Young Ju Bae, Jeong Eon Lee, Hyuk-Jae Shin, Ki-Tae Hwang, Sung-Eun Hwang and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 69 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Applications of Topological Data Analysis in Oncology.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2021
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. The role of S6K1 in ER-positive breast cancer.Cell cycle (Georgetown, Tex.) · 2012
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Deletion of the PER3 gene on chromosome 1p36 in recurrent ER-positive breast cancer.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2010
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Wonshik HanDepartment of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. hanw@snu.ac.kr
Mi-Ryung Han
Jason Jongho Kang
Ji-Yeon Bae
Ji Hyun Lee
Young Ju Bae
Jeong Eon Lee
Hyuk-Jae Shin
Ki-Tae Hwang
Sung-Eun Hwang
Sung-Won Kim
Dong-Young Noh
Seoul National University · KRMacrogen (South Korea) · KRNational University College · PR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA considerable proportion of estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer recurs despite tamoxifen treatment, which is a serious problem commonly encountered in clinical practice. We tried to find novel prognostic markers in this subtype of breast cancer.

methodsWe performed array comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) with 1,440 human bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) clones to assess copy number changes in 28 fresh-frozen ER-positive breast cancer tissues. All of the patients included had received at least 1 year of tamoxifen treatment. Nine patients had distant recurrence within 5 years (Recurrence group) of diagnosis and 19 patients were alive without disease at least 5 years after diagnosis (Non-recurrence group).

resultsPotential prognostic variables were comparable between the two groups. In an unsupervised clustering analysis, samples from each group were well separated. The most common regions of gain in all samples were 1q32.1, 17q23.3, 8q24.11, 17q12-q21.1, and 8p11.21, and the most common regions of loss were 6q14.1-q16.3, 11q21-q24.3, and 13q13.2-q14.3, as called by CGH-Explorer software. The average frequency of copy number changes was similar between the two groups. The most significant chromosomal alterations found more often in the Recurrence group using two different statistical methods were loss of 11p15.5-p15.4, 1p36.33, 11q13.1, and 11p11.2 (adjusted p values < 0.001). In subgroup analysis according to lymph node status, loss of 11p15 and 1p36 were found more often in Recurrence group with borderline significance within the lymph node positive patients (adjusted p = 0.052).

conclusionOur array CGH analysis with BAC clones could detect various genomic alterations in ER-positive breast cancers, and Recurrence group samples showed a significantly different pattern of DNA copy number changes than did Non-recurrence group samples.

Indexed as

EstrogensNucleic Acid HybridizationAdultAgedAntineoplastic Agents, HormonalAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsBreast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Ductal, BreastChemotherapy, AdjuvantChromosomes, Artificial, BacterialCluster AnalysisCombined Modality TherapyCyclophosphamideDisease-Free SurvivalDNA, NeoplasmEstrogen Receptor ModulatorsAntineoplastic Agents, HormonalCyclophosphamideDNA, NeoplasmEstrogen Receptor ModulatorsEstrogensFluorouracilMethotrexateNeoplasm ProteinsReceptors, EstrogenTamoxifen

Identifiers

PMID16608533
PMCPMC1459182
OpenAlexW1954011172

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.