Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18501937›Full record

ReviewSteroids2008

ERbeta in breast cancer--onlooker, passive player, or active protector?

Emily M Fox, Rebecca J Davis, Margaret A Shupnik

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Steroids, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 77 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
77citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
7.1field-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

77 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 151 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Characterization of an Estrogen Receptor α-SelectiveWorld journal of nuclear medicine · 2024
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

17 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Emily M FoxDepartment of Pharmacology, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA 22903, United States.
Rebecca J Davis
Margaret A Shupnik
University of Virginia · US

Funding

Women's Oncology Program - WONP30CA044579 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA CHARLOTTESVILLE · PI Thomas P. Loughran · 1987 to 2026
$72.1M
ESTROGEN ACTION IN THE PITUITARYR01DK057082 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA CHARLOTTESVILLE · PI SHUPNIK, MARGARET A · 1999 to 2005
$1.5M
NCI NIH HHS P30-CA44579NIDDK NIH HHS DK579082NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK057082
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The role of estrogen exposure in breast cancer risk is well-documented, and both estrogen synthesis and actions through the estrogen receptor (ER) have been targeted by therapies to control hormone-dependent breast cancer. The discovery of a second ER form and its therapeutic implications sparked great interest. Both the original ERalpha and the more recently identified ERbeta subtypes bind and respond similarly to many physiological and pharmacological ligands. However, differences in phytoestrogen binding have been noted, and subtype-specific ligands have been developed. Cell-based assays show that ERbeta and its variants are generally less active on gene transcription than ERalpha, and may influence ERalpha activity; however, both gene- and cell-specific responses occur, and nongenomic activities are less well explored. Specific ligands, and methods to disrupt or eliminate receptor subtype expression in animal and cell models, demonstrate that the ERs have both overlapping and distinct biological functions. Overall, in cell-based studies, ERalpha appears to play a predominant role in cell proliferation, and ERbeta is suggested to be antiproliferative. The potential for distinct populations of breast tumors to be identified based on ER subtype expression, and to exhibit distinct clinical behaviors, is of greatest interest. Several studies suggest that the majority of ER-positive tumors contain both subtypes, but that some tumors contain only ERbeta and may have distinct clinical behaviors and responses. Expression of ERbeta together with ERalpha favors positive responses to endocrine therapy in most studies, and additional studies to determine if the addition of ERbeta to ERalpha as a tumor marker is of clinical benefit are warranted. In contrast, the positive association between ERbeta and HER2 expression in high-grade ERalpha-negative breast cancer does not favor positive responses to endocrine therapy. Expression of ERbeta in specific clinical subpopulations, and the potential for therapies targeting ERbeta specifically, is discussed.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsEstrogen Receptor alphaEstrogen Receptor betaFemaleForecastingHumansProtein IsoformsTamoxifenEstrogen Receptor alphaEstrogen Receptor betaProtein IsoformsTamoxifen

Identifiers

PMID18501937
PMCPMC2583259
OpenAlexW1963718035

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.