Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21771338›Full record

ArticleBMC pharmacology2011

Enhanced sensitivity to cisplatin and gemcitabine in Brca1-deficient murine mammary epithelial cells.

Elizabeth Alli, Vandana B Sharma, Anne-Renee Hartman, Patrick S Lin, Lisa McPherson, James M Ford

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pharmacology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Role of Epigenetics for the Efficacy of Cisplatin.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Can Cisplatin Therapy Be Improved? Pathways That Can Be Targeted.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Elizabeth AlliDepartment of Medicine, Division of Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Center for Clinical Sciences Research, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
Vandana B Sharma
Anne-Renee Hartman
Patrick S Lin
Lisa McPherson
James M Ford
Center for Clinical Research (United States) · US

Funding

Leveraging innovative technologies in basic and clinical cancer researchT32CA009302 · NCI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI LAURA D ATTARDI, Aaron M Newman · 1985 to 2026
$19.1M
MECHANISM FOR P53-DEPENDENT DNA EXCISION REPAIRR01CA083889 · NCI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI FORD, JAMES M · 2000 to 2002
$653k
NCI NIH HHS 5T32 CA09302-27NCI NIH HHS R01 CA83889
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBreast cancers due to germline mutations or altered expression of the BRCA1 gene associate with an aggressive clinical course and frequently exhibit a "triple-negative" phenotype, i.e. lack of expression of the estrogen and progesterone hormone receptors and lack of overexpression of the HER2/NEU oncogene, thereby rendering them relatively insensitive to hormonal manipulation and targeted HER2 therapy, respectively. BRCA1 plays a role in multiple DNA repair pathways, and thus, when mutated, results in sensitivity to certain DNA damaging drugs.

resultsHere, we used a Brca1 murine mammary epithelial cell (MMEC) model to examine the effect of loss of Brca1 on cellular sensitivity to various chemotherapy drugs. To explore novel therapeutic strategies, we included DNA damaging and non-DNA damaging drugs whose mechanisms are dependent and independent of DNA repair, respectively, and drugs that are used in standard and non-standard lines of therapy for breast cancer. To understand the cellular mechanism, we also determined the role that DNA repair plays in sensitivity to these drugs. We found that cisplatin and gemcitabine had the greatest specific therapeutic benefit to Brca1-deficient MMECs, and that when used in combination produced a synergistic effect. This sensitivity may be attributed in part to defective NER, which is one of the DNA repair pathways normally responsible for repairing DNA adducts produced by cisplatin and is shown in this study to be defective in Brca1-deficient MMECs. Brca1-deficient MMECs were not differentially sensitive to the standard breast cancer chemotherapy drugs doxorubicin, docetaxel or 5-FU.

conclusionsBoth cisplatin and gemcitabine should be explored in clinical trials for first line regimens for BRCA1-associated and triple-negative breast cancer.

Indexed as

Genes, BRCA1AnimalsAntineoplastic AgentsCisplatinDeoxycytidineDNA DamageDNA RepairEpithelial CellsFemaleGemcitabineMammary Glands, AnimalMammary Neoplasms, ExperimentalMiceAntineoplastic AgentsCisplatinDeoxycytidineGemcitabine

Identifiers

PMID21771338
PMCPMC3146825
OpenAlexW2014750426

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.