ArticleCancer research2013
Genetic variation in transforming growth factor beta 1 and mammographic density in Singapore Chinese women.
Article in Cancer research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Measurement of breast density with digital breast tomosynthesis--a systematic review.The British journal of radiology · 2014Pooled it
- Understanding mammographic breast density profile in China: A Sino-Australian comparative study of breast density using real-world data from cancer screening programs.Asia-Pacific journal of clinical oncology · 2022Article
- Plasma Growth Factor Gene Expression and Mammographic Breast Density in Postmenopausal Women.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2022Article
- Biological Mechanisms and Therapeutic Opportunities in Mammographic Density and Breast Cancer Risk.Cancers · 2021Review
- Identification of two novel mammographic density loci at 6Q25.1.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
TGF-β plays a critical role in normal mammary development and morphogenesis. Decreased TGF-β signaling has been associated with increased mammographic density. Percent mammographic density (PMD) adjusted for age and body mass index (BMI) is a strong risk factor and predictor of breast cancer risk. PMD is highly heritable, but few genetic determinants have been identified. We investigated the association between genetic variation in TGFB1 and PMD using a cross-sectional study of 2,038 women who were members of the population-based Singapore Chinese Health Study cohort. We assessed PMD using a computer-assisted method. We used linear regression to examine the association between nine tagging single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) of TGFB1 and PMD and their interaction with parity, adjusting for age, BMI, and dialect group. We calculated P values adjusted for correlated tests (P(ACT)) to account for multiple testing. The strongest association was observed for rs2241716. Adjusted PMD was higher by 1.5% per minor allele (P(ACT) = 0.04). When stratifying by parity, this association was limited to nulliparous women. For nulliparous women, adjusted PMD was higher by 8.6% per minor allele (P(ACT) = 0.003; P for interaction with parity = 0.002). Three additional TGFB1 tagging SNPs, which were in linkage disequilibrium with rs2241716, were statistically significantly associated with adjusted PMD (P(ACT) < 0.05) for nulliparous women. However, none of these three SNPs showed statistically significant association after adjusting for rs2241716. Our data support that TGFB1 genetic variation may be an important genetic determinant of mammographic density measure that predicts breast cancer risk, particularly in nulliparous women.
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.