Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19132008›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Cancer2009

Do 'basal-like' breast cancers really exist?

Barry Gusterson

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Cancer, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 71 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
71citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

71 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Role of PARP Inhibitors: A New Hope for Breast Cancer Therapy.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Role of EGFR and FASN in breast cancer progression.Journal of cell communication and signaling · 2023
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

11 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

1 author.

Barry GustersonDivision of Cancer Sciences and Molecular Pathology, University of Glasgow, Western Infirmary (Pathology), Dumbarton Road, Glasgow G11 6NT, Scotland, UK. B.A.Gusterson@clinmed.gla.ac.uk

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It has been proposed that gene expression profiles will revolutionize the classification of breast cancer, eventually replacing histopathology with a more reproducible technology. These new approaches, combined with a better understanding of the cellular origins of breast cancer, should enable us to identify patient subgroups for more effective therapy. However, in such a rapidly advancing field it is essential that initial and thought-provoking results do not become established as 'facts' without question. This Opinion addresses some of the negatives and positives generated by the term 'basal-like' breast cancer, and questions its existence as an entity.

Indexed as

Terminology as TopicAnimalsBRCA1 ProteinBreastBreast NeoplasmsFemaleGene Expression ProfilingHumansKeratinsBRCA1 ProteinKeratins

Identifiers

PMID19132008

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.