Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19393583›Full record

ArticleMolecular oncology2009

Molecular characterization of apocrine carcinoma of the breast: validation of an apocrine protein signature in a well-defined cohort.

Julio E Celis, Teresa Cabezón, José M A Moreira, Pavel Gromov, Irina Gromova, Vera Timmermans-Wielenga, Takuji Iwase, Futoshi Akiyama, Naoko Honma, Fritz Rank

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular oncology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Involvement ofFrontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Androgens in human breast carcinoma.Medical molecular morphology · 2010
    Review
  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

10 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Julio E CelisDanish Centre for Translational Breast Cancer Research (DCTB), Strandboulevarden 49, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark. jec@cancer.dk
Teresa Cabezón
José M A Moreira
Pavel Gromov
Irina Gromova
Vera Timmermans-Wielenga
Takuji Iwase
Futoshi Akiyama
Naoko Honma
Fritz Rank
Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group · DKRigshospitalet · DKThe Cancer Institute Hospital · JPBreast Cancer Research Foundation · USTokyo Metropolitan Institute of Gerontology · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Invasive apocrine carcinomas (IACs), as defined by morphological features, correspond to 0.3-4% of all invasive ductal carcinomas (IDC), and despite the fact that they are histologically distinct from other breast lesions there are currently no standard molecular criteria available for their diagnosis and no unequivocal information as to their prognosis. In an effort to address these concerns we have been using protein expression profiling technologies in combination with mass spectrometry and immunohistochemistry (IHC) to discover specific biomarkers that could allow us to molecularly characterize these lesions as well as to dissect some of the steps in the processes underlying breast apocrine metaplasia and development of precancerous apocrine lesions. Establishing these apocrine-specific markers as best practice for the routine pathology evaluation of breast cancer, however, will require their validation in large cohorts of patients. Towards this goal we have composed a panel of antibodies against components of an apocrine protein signature that includes probes against the apocrine-specific markers 15-prostaglandin dehydrogenase (15-PGDH), and acyl-CoA synthetase medium-chain family member 1 (ACSM1), in addition to a set of categorizing markers that are consistently expressed (AR, CD24) or not expressed (ERα, PgR, Bcl-2, and GATA-3) by apocrine metaplasia in benign breast lesions and apocrine sweat glands. This panel was used to analyze a well-defined cohort consisting of 14 apocrine ductal carcinoma in situ (ADCIS), and 33 IACs diagnosed at the Cancer Institute Hospital, Tokyo between 1997 and 2001. Samples were originally classified on the basis of cellular morphology with all cases having more than 90% of the tumour cells exhibiting cytological features typical of apocrine cells. Using the expression of 15-PGDH and/or ACSM1 as the main criterion, but taking into account the expression of other markers, we were able to identify unambiguously 13 out of 14 ADCIS (92.9%) and 20 out of 33 (60.6%) IAC samples, respectively, as being of apocrine origin. Our results demonstrate that IACs correspond to a distinct, even if heterogeneous, molecular subgroup of breast carcinomas that can be readily identified in an unbiased way using a combination of markers that recapitulate the phenotype of apocrine sweat glands (15-PGDH(+), ACSM1(+), AR(+), CD24(+), ERα(-), PgR(-), Bcl-2(-), and GATA-3(-)). These results pave the way for addressing issues such as prognosis of IACs, patient stratification for targeted therapeutics, as well as research strategies for identifying novel therapeutic targets for developing new cancer therapies.

Indexed as

Gene Expression Regulation, NeoplasticAdultAgedAged, 80 and overApocrine GlandsBiomarkers, TumorBreast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Intraductal, NoninfiltratingFemaleGene Expression ProfilingHumansImmunohistochemistryMiddle AgedNeoplasm ProteinsRetrospective StudiesBiomarkers, TumorNeoplasm Proteins

Identifiers

PMID19393583
PMCPMC5527852
OpenAlexW2020234050

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.