Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17001317›Full record

ArticleOncogene2007

Using array-comparative genomic hybridization to define molecular portraits of primary breast cancers.

S-F Chin, Y Wang, N P Thorne, A E Teschendorff, S E Pinder, M Vias, A Naderi, I Roberts, N L Barbosa-Morais, M J Garcia and 8 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Oncogene, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

56 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 111 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Spiegelmer Aptamers: Innovative Approach in Breast Cancer.Breast cancer : basic and clinical research · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

18 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

S-F ChinCancer Genomics Program, Department of Oncology, Hutchison/MRC Research Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Y Wang
N P Thorne
A E Teschendorff
S E Pinder
M Vias
A Naderi
I Roberts
N L Barbosa-Morais
M J Garcia
N G Iyer
T Kranjac
J F R Robertson
S Aparicio
S Tavaré
I Ellis
J D Brenton
C Caldas
Hutchison/MRC Research Centre · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GBNottingham City Hospital · GBUniversity of Nottingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We analysed 148 primary breast cancers using BAC-arrays containing 287 clones representing cancer-related gene/loci to obtain genomic molecular portraits. Gains were detected in 136 tumors (91.9%) and losses in 123 tumors (83.1%). Eight tumors (5.4%) did not have any genomic aberrations in the 281 clones analysed. Common (more than 15% of the samples) gains were observed at 8q11-qtel, 1q21-qtel, 17q11-q12 and 11q13, whereas common losses were observed at 16q12-qtel, 11ptel-p15.5, 1p36-ptel, 17p11.2-p12 and 8ptel-p22. Patients with tumors registering either less than 5% (median value) or less than 11% (third quartile) total copy number changes had a better overall survival (log-rank test: P=0.0417 and P=0.0375, respectively). Unsupervised hierarchical clustering based on copy number changes identified four clusters. Women with tumors from the cluster with amplification of three regions containing known breast oncogenes (11q13, 17q12 and 20q13) had a worse prognosis. The good prognosis group (Nottingham Prognostic Index (NPI) <or=3.4) tumors had frequent loss of 16q24-qtel. Genes significantly associated with estrogen receptor (ER), Grade and NPI were used to build k-nearest neighbor (KNN) classifiers that predicted ER, Grade and NPI status in the test set with an average misclassification rate of 24.7, 25.7 and 35.7%, respectively. These data raise the prospect of generating a molecular taxonomy of breast cancer based on copy number profiling using tumor DNA, which may be more generally applicable than expression microarray analysis.

Indexed as

GenomeNucleic Acid HybridizationBreast NeoplasmsChromosome MappingCohort StudiesHumansSurvival Analysis

Identifiers

PMID17001317
OpenAlexW2110936580

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.