Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21965338›Full record

ReviewThe Journal of clinical investigation2011

Insight into the heterogeneity of breast cancer through next-generation sequencing.

Hege G Russnes, Nicholas Navin, James Hicks, Anne-Lise Borresen-Dale

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Journal of clinical investigation, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 123 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
123citing 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

123 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. [Journal of clinical medicine · 2024
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Radiology. Imaging cancer · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Omics Technologies Improving Breast Cancer Research and Diagnostics.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  15. Breast Cancer Statistics in Korea, 2019.Journal of breast cancer · 2023
    Review
  16. Article
  17. High levels of unfolded protein response component CHAC1 associates with cancer progression signatures in malignant breast cancer tissues.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

63 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Hege G RussnesLaboratory of Molecular Pathology, Division of Pathology, Institute for Cancer Research, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway. heg@rr-research.no
Nicholas Navin
James Hicks
Anne-Lise Borresen-Dale

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rapid and sophisticated improvements in molecular analysis have allowed us to sequence whole human genomes as well as cancer genomes, and the findings suggest that we may be approaching the ability to individualize the diagnosis and treatment of cancer. This paradigmatic shift in approach will require clinicians and researchers to overcome several challenges including the huge spectrum of tumor types within a given cancer, as well as the cell-to-cell variations observed within tumors. This review discusses how next-generation sequencing of breast cancer genomes already reveals insight into tumor heterogeneity and how it can contribute to future breast cancer classification and management.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorBreast NeoplasmsDNA, NeoplasmFemaleGenetic VariationGenome, HumanHumansModels, BiologicalMutationPhenotypePrecision MedicinePrognosisSequence Analysis, DNABiomarkers, TumorDNA, Neoplasm

Identifiers

PMID21965338
PMCPMC3195464

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.