ReviewOmics : a journal of integrative biology2011
Challenges to developing proteomic-based breast cancer diagnostics.
Review in Omics : a journal of integrative biology, 2011. 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, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multiomics tools for the diagnosis and treatment of rare neurological disease.Journal of inherited metabolic disease · 2018Review
- Proteomic approaches in biomarker discovery: new perspectives in cancer diagnostics.TheScientificWorldJournal · 2014Review
- Advances in the proteomic discovery of novel therapeutic targets in cancer.Drug design, development and therapy · 2013Review
- Proteomic studies in breast cancer (Review).Oncology letters · 2012Article
- Protein and lipid MALDI profiles classify breast cancers according to the intrinsic subtype.BMC cancer · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Over the past decade, multiple genetic and histological approaches have accelerated development of new breast cancer diagnostics and treatment paradigms. Multiple distinct genetic subtypes of breast cancers have been defined, and this has progressively led toward more personalized medicine in regard to treatment options. There still remains a deficiency in the development of molecular diagnostic assays that can be used for breast cancer detection and pretherapy clinical decisions. In particular, the type of cancer-specific biomarker typified by a serum or tissue-derived protein. Progress in this regard has been minimal, especially in comparison to the rapid advancements in genetic and histological assays for breast cancers. In this review, some potential reasons for this large gap in developing protein biomarkers will be discussed, as well as new strategies for improving these approaches. Improvements in the study design of protein biomarker discovery strategies in relation to the genetic subtypes and histology of breast cancers is also emphasized. The current successes in use of genetic and histological assays for breast cancer diagnostics are summarized, and in that context, the current limitations of the types of breast cancer-related clinical samples available for protein biomarker assay development are discussed. Based on these limitations, research strategies emphasizing identification of glycoprotein biomarkers in blood and MALDI mass spectrometry imaging of tissues are described.
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.