Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20368555›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology2010

Intratumor heterogeneity and precision of microarray-based predictors of breast cancer biology and clinical outcome.

William T Barry, Dawn N Kernagis, Holly K Dressman, Ryan J Griffis, J'vonne D Hunter, John A Olson, Jeff R Marks, Geoffrey S Ginsburg, Paul K Marcom, Joseph R Nevins and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

57 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Receptor discordance after nipple-sparing mastectomy.Surgery in practice and science · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Identification ofFrontiers in genetics · 2022
    Article
  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

12 authors.

William T BarryDepartment of Biostatistics, Duke University Medical Center, Medical Center Box 3712, Durham, NC 27710, USA.
Dawn N Kernagis
Holly K Dressman
Ryan J Griffis
J'vonne D Hunter
John A Olson
Jeff R Marks
Geoffrey S Ginsburg
Paul K Marcom
Joseph R Nevins
Joseph Geradts
Michael B Datto

Funding

SPORE IN BREAST CANCERP50CA068438 · NCI · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI LYERLY, HERBERT KIM · 1995 to 2007
$14.3M
NCI NIH HHS P50 CA068438NCI NIH HHS P50CA068438
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIdentifying sources of variation in expression microarray data and the effect of variance in gene expression measurements on complex predictive and diagnostic models is essential when translating microarray-based experimental approaches into clinical assays. The technical reproducibility of microarray platforms is well established. Here, we investigate the additional impact of intratumor heterogeneity, a largely unstudied component of variance, on the performance of several microarray-based assays in breast cancer. PATIENTS AND

methodsGenome-wide expression profiling was performed on 50 core needle biopsies from 18 breast cancer patients using Affymetrix GeneChip Human Genome U133 Plus 2.0 arrays. Global profiles of expression were characterized using unsupervised clustering methods and variance components models. Array-based measures of estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) status were compared with immunohistochemistry. The precision of genomic predictors of ER pathway status, recurrence risk, and sensitivity to chemotherapeutics was evaluated by interclass correlation.

resultsGlobal patterns of gene expression demonstrated that intratumor variation was substantially less than the total variation observed across the patient population. Nevertheless, a fraction of genes exhibited significant intratumor heterogeneity in expression. A high degree of reproducibility was observed in single-gene predictors of ER (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.94) and PR expression (ICC = 0.90), and in a multigene predictor of ER pathway activation (ICC = 0.98) with high concordance with immunohistochemistry. Substantial agreement was also observed for multigene signatures of cancer recurrence (ICC = 0.71) and chemotherapeutic sensitivity (ICC = 0.72 and 0.64).

conclusionIntratumor heterogeneity, although present at the level of individual gene expression, does not preclude precise microarray-based predictions of tumor behavior or clinical outcome in breast cancer patients.

Indexed as

Gene Expression Regulation, NeoplasticOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisAntineoplastic AgentsBiopsy, NeedleBreast NeoplasmsCluster AnalysisErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesFemaleGene Expression ProfilingGenetic TestingHumansImmunohistochemistryKaplan-Meier EstimateNeoplasm StagingPredictive Value of TestsReceptors, EstrogenAntineoplastic AgentsERBB2 protein, humanErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesReceptors, EstrogenReceptors, Progesterone

Identifiers

PMID20368555
PMCPMC2860437

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.