Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19949797›Full record

ReviewDer Pathologe2010

[Beyond staging, typing and grading. New challenges in breast cancer pathology].

H H Kreipe, P Ahrens, M Christgen, U Lehmann, F Länger

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Pathologe, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. 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

5 authors.

H H KreipeInstitut für Pathologie, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Carl Neuberg Strasse 1, Hannover, Germany. Kreipe.Hans@MH-Hannover.de
P Ahrens
M Christgen
U Lehmann
F Länger

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tumor biological parameters for the prediction and prognosis of invasive breast cancer are gaining in importance compared to traditional pathological categories. The immunohistochemically determined steroid hormone receptor status is not only the decisive factor influencing whether endocrine therapy (which is indicated in cases of even slight expression) is given or not, but also whether chemotherapy is considered. The Her2 status is of similar importance and needs to be analysed in every case of invasive carcinoma, whereby reproducibility, which requires greater efforts than with steroid hormone receptors, has to be assured. Probably only a small portion of breast cancers will benefit from chemotherapy. Since traditional pathological categories are not sufficient for the identification of this subgroup, there has been an intense search for alternative prognostic parameters, whereby gene expression profiling has emerged as the most promising tool. Despite minimal concordance with regard to single genes, the various profiles available converge in the identification of the proliferative signature as the prognostically most relevant. Whether histopathological grading and immunohistochemical determination of the growth fraction with Ki-67 or genetic profiling will be more reliable in the identification of the aggressive subtype has yet to be clarified in clinical studies which encompass central pathological review.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorBiopsyBreastBreast NeoplasmsErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesFemaleGene Expression ProfilingGene Expression Regulation, NeoplasticHumansKi-67 AntigenMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesNeoplasm StagingPrognosisReceptors, EstrogenReceptors, ProgesteroneBiomarkers, TumorERBB2 protein, humanErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesKi-67 AntigenReceptors, EstrogenReceptors, Progesterone

Identifiers

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.