Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21431872›Full record

ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2011

Differential expression of prognostic biomarkers between interval and screen-detected breast cancers: does age or family history matter?

Jan T Lowery, Tim Byers, John Kittelson, John E Hokanson, Judy Mouchawar, John Lewin, Dan Merrick, Lisa Hines, Meenakshi Singh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Errors in Mammography Cannot be Solved Through Technology AloneAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2018
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Mathematical models of breast and ovarian cancers.Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Systems biology and medicine · 2016
    Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

9 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Jan T LoweryColorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado Denver, Aurora, CO 80045-0508, USA. jan.lowery@ucdenver.edu
Tim Byers
John Kittelson
John E Hokanson
Judy Mouchawar
John Lewin
Dan Merrick
Lisa Hines
Meenakshi Singh
Colorado School of Public Health · USKaiser Permanente · USRadiology Associates · USStony Brook University Hospital · USUnited States Department of Veterans Affairs · USUniversity of Colorado Colorado Springs · USUniversity of Colorado Hospital · US

Funding

University of Colorado Cancer Center Support Grant - Lung Cancer Patient-Derived Xenografts with Autologous Human Immune SystemsP30CA046934 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI James V Degregori · 1988 to 2026
$117.0M
ROCKY MOUNTAIN CANCER GENETICS COALITIONU24CA078174 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI MINEAU, GERALDINE P · 1998 to 2006
$5.5M
NCI NIH HHS CA078174NCI NIH HHS P30 CA046934NCI NIH HHS U24 CA078174
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare tumor expression of prognostic biomarkers between interval breast cancers and screen-detected breast cancers overall, and according to age at diagnosis and familial risk. Tissue micro-arrays were constructed from 98 breast cancers (47 interval and 51 screen-detected) diagnosed in women in the Cancer Genetics Network. Arrays were immuno-stained to compare protein expression of six biomarkers including estrogen and progesterone receptor (ER/PR), Her2/neu, EGFR, cytokeratin 5/6, and Ki67. Fisher's Exact test was used to compare expression between interval and screen-detected cancers. Interval cancers were larger (P = 0.04), higher stage (P < 0.001), and more likely to have lobular histology (P = 0.01) than screen-detected cancers. Overall, interval cancers more often overexpressed EGFR (P = 0.01) and were somewhat more likely to be ER- (55% vs. 43%, P = 0.3), and triple negative (ER-/PR-/Her2-) (21 vs. 12%, P = 0.26). A greater difference in the proportion of interval versus screen-detected tumors that were ER- (53 vs. 35%; P = 0.29), PR- (35 vs. 21%; P = 0.25) and EGFR+ (17 vs. 0%; P = 0.02) was evident among women over 50. There was a trend toward differential expression among women with familial risk for PR- (P = 0.005) and triple negative status (P = 0.02). This study provides new data indicating that EGFR may be important in the etiology of interval cancer and be a possible therapeutic target. Our data also suggest that biological differences between interval and screen-detected cancers are more defined in older women. Future studies to confirm this finding and to elucidate novel markers for characterizing interval cancers may be more beneficial to this subgroup.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsBiomarkers, TumorBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPrognosisBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID21431872
PMCPMC4675131
OpenAlexW2058700318

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.