Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21345283›Full record

ReviewBreast cancer research : BCR2011

Gene signatures of breast cancer progression and metastasis.

David I Rodenhiser, Joseph D Andrews, Theodore A Vandenberg, Ann F Chambers

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Breast cancer research : BCR, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
–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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Molecular biomarkers of cancer stem/progenitor cells associated with progression, metastases, and treatment resistance of aggressive cancers.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2014
    Review
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

4 authors.

David I RodenhiserLondon Regional Cancer Program, Cancer Research Laboratories, London Health Sciences Centre, 790 Commissioners Road East, London, Ontario, N6A 4L6, Canada.
Joseph D Andrews
Theodore A Vandenberg
Ann F Chambers

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease. Patient outcome varies significantly, depending on prognostic features of patients and their tumors, including patient age, menopausal status, tumor size and histology, nodal status, and so on. Response to treatment also depends on a series of predictive factors, such as hormone receptor and HER2 status. Current treatment guidelines use these features to determine treatment. However, these guidelines are imperfect, and do not always predict response to treatment or survival. Evolving technologies are permitting increasingly large amounts of molecular data to be obtained from tumors, which may enable more personalized treatment decisions to be made. The challenge is to learn what information leads to improved prognostic accuracy and treatment outcome for individual patients.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorBreast NeoplasmsDisease ProgressionFemaleGene Expression ProfilingHumansNeoplasm MetastasisPrognosisBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID21345283
PMCPMC3109557

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.