ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2012
A three-gene model to robustly identify breast cancer molecular subtypes.
Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 174 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
174 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The Impact of Stroma Admixture on Molecular Subtypes and Prognostic Gene Signatures in Serous Ovarian Cancer.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2020Pooled it
- Comparative oncogenomics identifies combinations of driver genes and drug targets in BRCA1-mutated breast cancer.Nature communications · 2019Pooled it
- The Role of Proliferation in Determining Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer: A Gene Expression-Based Meta-Analysis.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2016Pooled it
- A data similarity-based strategy for meta-analysis of transcriptional profiles in cancer.PloS one · 2013Pooled it
- The spatially informed mFISHseq assay resolves biomarker discordance and predicts treatment response in breast cancer.Nature communications · 2025Trial
- Evaluation of Sensitivity to Endocrine Therapy Index (SET2,3) for Response to Neoadjuvant Endocrine Therapy and Longer-Term Breast Cancer Patient Outcomes (Alliance Z1031).Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2022Trial
- Beta-2 Adrenergic Receptor Gene Expression in HER2-Positive Early-Stage Breast Cancer Patients: A Post-hoc Analysis of the NCCTG-N9831 (Alliance) Trial.Clinical breast cancer · 2022Trial
- Predicted sensitivity to endocrine therapy for stage II-III hormone receptor-positive and HER2-negative (HR+/HER2-) breast cancer before chemo-endocrine therapy.Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology · 2021Trial
- p-STAT3 in luminal breast cancer: Integrated RNA-protein pooled analysis and results from the BIG 2-98 phase III trial.International journal of oncology · 2018Trial
- Trial
- The effects of soy supplementation on gene expression in breast cancer: a randomized placebo-controlled study.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2014Trial
- Cell cycle pathway alterations predict outcomes post-liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma.Frontiers in transplantation · 2026Article
- Prognostic Significance of DNA Repair Gene mRNA Expression in Early-Stage Breast Cancer: Insights into Clinical Relevance.Oncology research · 2026Article
- The significance of molecular heterogeneity in breast cancer batch correction and dataset integration.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2025Article
- Augmented kurtosis-based projection pursuit: a novel, advanced machine learning approach for multi-omics data analysis and integration.Nucleic acids research · 2025Article
- Associations Between DNA Repair Gene Polymorphisms and Breast Cancer Histopathological Subtypes: A Preliminary Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Association between transcriptomic metrics of exogenous antigen presentation and adaptive immunity with locoregional recurrence in localized estrogen receptor negative breast cancer: retrospective review of multi-institutional datasets.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2025Article
- Prognostic and predictive implications of sterile alpha motif and HD domain-containing protein 1 (SAMHD1) expression in breast cancer.International journal of cancer · 2025Article
- HDAC inhibitors modulate Hippo pathway signaling in hormone positive breast cancer.Clinical epigenetics · 2025Article
- The Breast Cancer Classifier refines molecular breast cancer classification to delineate the HER2-low subtype.NPJ breast cancer · 2025Article
114 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSingle sample predictors (SSPs) and Subtype classification models (SCMs) are gene expression-based classifiers used to identify the four primary molecular subtypes of breast cancer (basal-like, HER2-enriched, luminal A, and luminal B). SSPs use hierarchical clustering, followed by nearest centroid classification, based on large sets of tumor-intrinsic genes. SCMs use a mixture of Gaussian distributions based on sets of genes with expression specifically correlated with three key breast cancer genes (estrogen receptor [ER], HER2, and aurora kinase A [AURKA]). The aim of this study was to compare the robustness, classification concordance, and prognostic value of these classifiers with those of a simplified three-gene SCM in a large compendium of microarray datasets.
methodsThirty-six publicly available breast cancer datasets (n = 5715) were subjected to molecular subtyping using five published classifiers (three SSPs and two SCMs) and SCMGENE, the new three-gene (ER, HER2, and AURKA) SCM. We used the prediction strength statistic to estimate robustness of the classification models, defined as the capacity of a classifier to assign the same tumors to the same subtypes independently of the dataset used to fit it. We used Cohen κ and Cramer V coefficients to assess concordance between the subtype classifiers and association with clinical variables, respectively. We used Kaplan-Meier survival curves and cross-validated partial likelihood to compare prognostic value of the resulting classifications. All statistical tests were two-sided.
resultsSCMs were statistically significantly more robust than SSPs, with SCMGENE being the most robust because of its simplicity. SCMGENE was statistically significantly concordant with published SCMs (κ = 0.65-0.70) and SSPs (κ = 0.34-0.59), statistically significantly associated with ER (V = 0.64), HER2 (V = 0.52) status, and histological grade (V = 0.55), and yielded similar strong prognostic value.
conclusionOur results suggest that adequate classification of the major and clinically relevant molecular subtypes of breast cancer can be robustly achieved with quantitative measurements of three key genes.
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.