ArticleAnalytical cellular pathology (Amsterdam)2010
Molecular differences between ductal carcinoma in situ and adjacent invasive breast carcinoma: a multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification study.
Article in Analytical cellular pathology (Amsterdam), 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mechanostimulation of breast myoepithelial cells induces functional changes associated with DCIS progression to invasion.NPJ breast cancer · 2022Article
- Whole-Exome Sequencing Analysis of the Progression from Non-Low-Grade Ductal CarcinomaClinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2020Observational
- Ductal Carcinoma In Situ of the Breast: Perspectives on Tumor Subtype and Treatment.BioMed research international · 2020Article
- Off to a Bad Start: Cancer Initiation by Pluripotency Regulator PRDM14.Trends in genetics : TIG · 2019Review
- Intratumoral Heterogeneity in Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: Chaos and Consequence.Journal of mammary gland biology and neoplasia · 2018Review
- Breast carcinoma in situ: An observational study of tumor subtype, treatment and outcomes.Oncotarget · 2017Observational
- Dysregulation of histone methyltransferases in breast cancer - Opportunities for new targeted therapies?Molecular oncology · 2016Review
- Estrogen receptor alpha gene amplification in breast cancer: 25 years of debate.World journal of clinical oncology · 2016Review
- Analysis of gene copy number alterations by multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification in columnar cell lesions of the breast.Cellular oncology (Dordrecht, Netherlands) · 2014Article
- Chromosome 1q25.3 copy number alterations in primary breast cancers detected by multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification and allelic imbalance assays and its comparison with fluorescent in situ hybridization assays.Cellular oncology (Dordrecht, Netherlands) · 2013Article
- Single-cell genetic analysis of ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive breast cancer reveals enormous tumor heterogeneity yet conserved genomic imbalances and gain of MYC during progression.The American journal of pathology · 2012Article
- FGFR1 is amplified during the progression of in situ to invasive breast carcinoma.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2012Article
- On the evidence for ESR1 amplification in breast cancer.Nature reviews. Cancer · 2012Article
- Clinical implications of cancer self-seeding.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2011Review
Corrections and comments
- Reprinted as
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) accounts for approximately 20% of mammographically detected breast cancers. Although DCIS is generally highly curable, some women with DCIS will develop life-threatening invasive breast cancer, but the determinants of progression to infiltrating ductal cancer (IDC) are largely unknown. In the current study, we used multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA), a multiplex PCR-based test, to compare copy numbers of 21 breast cancer related genes between laser-microdissected DCIS and adjacent IDC lesions in 39 patients. Genes included in this study were ESR1, EGFR, FGFR1, ADAM9, IKBKB, PRDM14, MTDH, MYC, CCND1, EMSY, CDH1, TRAF4, CPD, MED1, HER2, CDC6, TOP2A, MAPT, BIRC5, CCNE1 and AURKA.There were no significant differences in copy number for the 21 genes between DCIS and adjacent IDC. Low/intermediate-grade DCIS showed on average 6 gains/amplifications versus 8 in high-grade DCIS (p=0.158). Furthermore, alterations of AURKA and CCNE1 were exclusively found in high-grade DCIS, and HER2, PRDM14 and EMSY amplification was more frequent in high-grade DCIS than in low/intermediate-grade DCIS. In contrast, the average number of alterations in low/intermediate and high-grade IDC was similar, and although EGFR alterations were exclusively found in high-grade IDC compared to low/intermediate-grade IDC, there were generally fewer differences between low/intermediate-grade and high-grade IDC than between low/intermediate-grade and high-grade DCIS.In conclusion, there were no significant differences in copy number for 21 breast cancer related genes between DCIS and adjacent IDC, indicating that DCIS is genetically as advanced as its invasive counterpart. However, high-grade DCIS showed more copy number changes than low/intermediate-grade DCIS with specifically involved genes, supporting a model in which different histological grades of DCIS are associated with distinct genomic changes that progress to IDC in different routes. These high-grade DCIS specific genes may be potential targets for treatment and/or predict progression.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.