ArticlePloS one2010
Minimising immunohistochemical false negative ER classification using a complementary 23 gene expression signature of ER status.
Article in PloS one, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Co-expressed genes enhance precision of receptor status identification in breast cancer patients.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2018Pooled it
- PIK3CA mutations, phosphatase and tensin homolog, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, and insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor and adjuvant tamoxifen resistance in postmenopausal breast cancer patients.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2014Trial
- The aetiology of breast cancer subtypes: results from the Million Women Study.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2025Article
- Identification of a gene expression signature associated with breast cancer survival and risk that improves clinical genomic platforms.Bioinformatics advances · 2023Article
- Contemporary evaluation of estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor expression in breast cancer-associated stroma.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2022Article
- Decision Theory versus Conventional Statistics for Personalized Therapy of Breast Cancer.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Decision theory for precision therapy of breast cancer.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- An Efficient Algorithm for the Detection of Outliers in Mislabeled Omics Data.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2021Article
- pAKT pathway activation is associated withNPJ breast cancer · 2019Article
- Estrogen receptor variants in ER-positive basal-type breast cancers responding to therapy like ER-negative breast cancers.NPJ breast cancer · 2019Article
- Elafin drives poor outcome in high-grade serous ovarian cancers and basal-like breast tumors.Oncogene · 2015Article
- Transfer of clinically relevant gene expression signatures in breast cancer: from Affymetrix microarray to Illumina RNA-Sequencing technology.BMC genomics · 2014Article
- Microarray-based RNA profiling of breast cancer: batch effect removal improves cross-platform consistency.BioMed research international · 2014Article
- PAM50 assay and the three-gene model for identifying the major and clinically relevant molecular subtypes of breast cancer.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2012Article
- A three-gene model to robustly identify breast cancer molecular subtypes.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2012Article
- TNBCtype: A Subtyping Tool for Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.Cancer informatics · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundExpression of the oestrogen receptor (ER) in breast cancer predicts benefit from endocrine therapy. Minimising the frequency of false negative ER status classification is essential to identify all patients with ER positive breast cancers who should be offered endocrine therapies in order to improve clinical outcome. In routine oncological practice ER status is determined by semi-quantitative methods such as immunohistochemistry (IHC) or other immunoassays in which the ER expression level is compared to an empirical threshold. The clinical relevance of gene expression-based ER subtypes as compared to IHC-based determination has not been systematically evaluated. Here we attempt to reduce the frequency of false negative ER status classification using two gene expression approaches and compare these methods to IHC based ER status in terms of predictive and prognostic concordance with clinical outcome. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL
findingsFirstly, ER status was discriminated by fitting the bimodal expression of ESR1 to a mixed Gaussian model. The discriminative power of ESR1 suggested bimodal expression as an efficient way to stratify breast cancer; therefore we identified a set of genes whose expression was both strongly bimodal, mimicking ESR expression status, and highly expressed in breast epithelial cell lines, to derive a 23-gene ER expression signature-based classifier. We assessed our classifiers in seven published breast cancer cohorts by comparing the gene expression-based ER status to IHC-based ER status as a predictor of clinical outcome in both untreated and tamoxifen treated cohorts. In untreated breast cancer cohorts, the 23 gene signature-based ER status provided significantly improved prognostic power compared to IHC-based ER status (P = 0.006). In tamoxifen-treated cohorts, the 23 gene ER expression signature predicted clinical outcome (HR = 2.20, P = 0.00035). These complementary ER signature-based strategies estimated that between 15.1% and 21.8% patients of IHC-based negative ER status would be classified with ER positive breast cancer. CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Expression-based ER status classification may complement IHC to minimise false negative ER status classification and optimise patient stratification for endocrine therapies.
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.