Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16790077›Full record

Trial reportBreast cancer research : BCR2006

The effect of the stromal component of breast tumours on prediction of clinical outcome using gene expression microarray analysis.

Susan J Cleator, Trevor J Powles, Tim Dexter, Laura Fulford, Alan Mackay, Ian E Smith, Haukur Valgeirsson, Alan Ashworth, Mitch Dowsett

Abstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Breast cancer research : BCR, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

32 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Differences in the transcriptional response to fulvestrant and estrogen deprivation in ER-positive breast cancer.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2014
    Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Prognostic stromal gene signatures in breast cancer.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2015
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Gene expression in oligodendroglial tumors.Cellular oncology (Dordrecht, Netherlands) · 2011
    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

9 authors.

Susan J CleatorBreakthrough Breast Cancer Research Centre, The Institute of Cancer Research, Fulham Road, SW3 6JB, London, UK. s.cleator@imperial.ac.uk
Trevor J Powles
Tim Dexter
Laura Fulford
Alan Mackay
Ian E Smith
Haukur Valgeirsson
Alan Ashworth
Mitch Dowsett

Funding

Breast Cancer Now BREAST CANCER NOW RESEARCH CENTRE
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe aim of this study was to examine the effect of the cellular composition of biopsies on the error rates of multigene predictors of response of breast tumours to neoadjuvant adriamycin and cyclophosphamide (AC) chemotherapy. MATERIALS AND

methodsCore biopsies were taken from primary breast tumours of 43 patients prior to AC, and subsequent clinical response was recorded. Post-chemotherapy (day 21) samples were available for 16 of these samples. Frozen sections of each core were used to estimate the proportion of invasive cancer and other tissue components at three levels. Transcriptional profiling was performed using a cDNA array containing 4,600 elements.

resultsTwenty-three (53%) patients demonstrated a 'good' and 20 (47%) a 'poor' clinical response. The percentage invasive tumour in core biopsies collected from these patients varied markedly. Despite this, agglomerative clustering of sample expression profiles showed that almost all biopsies from the same tumour aggregated as nearest neighbours. SAM (significance analysis of microarrays) regression analysis identified 144 genes which distinguished high- and low-percentage invasive tumour biopsies at a false discovery rate of not more than 5%. The misclassification error of prediction of clinical response using microarray data from pre-treatment biopsies (on leave-one-out cross-validation) was 28%. When prediction was performed on subsets of samples which were more homogeneous in their proportions of malignant and stromal cells, the misclassification error was considerably lower (8%-13%, p < 0.05 on permutation).

conclusionThe non-tumour content of breast cancer samples has a significant effect on gene expression profiles. Consideration of this factor improves accuracy of response prediction by expression array profiling. Future gene expression array prediction studies should be planned taking this into account.

Indexed as

Gene Expression ProfilingAdultAgedAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsBiopsyBreast NeoplasmsCyclophosphamideDNA, ComplementaryDoxorubicinFemaleHumansMiddle AgedNeoadjuvant TherapyPredictive Value of TestsPrognosisReproducibility of ResultsCyclophosphamideDNA, ComplementaryDoxorubicin

Identifiers

PMID16790077
PMCPMC1557729

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.