ArticleSurgery today2010
Prognostic importance of neuroendocrine differentiation in Japanese breast cancer patients.
Article in Surgery today, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Breast tumor microenvironment structures are associated with genomic features and clinical outcome.Nature genetics · 2022Article
- Invasive Breast Carcinoma with Neuroendocrine Differentiation: A Single-Center Analysis of Clinical Features and Prognosis.Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde · 2022Article
- Gamma-enolase: a well-known tumour marker, with a less-known role in cancer.Radiology and oncology · 2015Review
- Solid neuroendocrine breast carcinoma: mammographic and sonographic features in thirteen cases.Chinese journal of cancer · 2012Article
- Arsenic, cadmium and neuron specific enolase (ENO2, γ-enolase) expression in breast cancer.Cancer cell international · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the frequency and prognostic importance of neuroendocrine differentiation (NED) in Japanese breast cancer patients.
methodsWe used standard immunohistochemical techniques to examine 50 patients who underwent resection of breast cancer between 1988 and 1993 at the Department of Surgery II, Nagoya University Hospital, for NED, defined as positive reactivity for four markers: neuron-specific enolase (NSE), synaptophysin, CD57, and chromogranin A (CGA). Neuroendocrine differentiation was defined by the presence of at least one marker including CGA, CD57, and synaptophysin, or at least two markers when one was positive for NSE.
resultsNeuroendocrine differentiation was found in 13 (26%) of the 50 patients examined. There were no significant differences in the distribution of patients with positive or negative NED in terms of age, menopausal status, tumor size, lymph node metastasis, histological grade, ER, PgR, and HER2. We calculated the cumulative survival rates of patient groups according to NED status, and found no significant difference in overall or disease-free survival between patients with and those without NED.
conclusionNeuroendocrine differentiation was identified in a subset (26%) of Japanese breast cancer patients, but this appeared to have no relationship with established prognostic factors or patient outcome.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20740345What 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.