ReviewDer Pathologe2010
[Beyond staging, typing and grading. New challenges in breast cancer pathology].
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Multigene Assays for Classification, Prognosis, and Prediction in Breast Cancer: a Critical Review on the Background and Clinical Utility.Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
19949797What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.