Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23549873›Full record

ArticleClinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research2013

Identification of prognosis-relevant subgroups in patients with chemoresistant triple-negative breast cancer.

Ke-Da Yu, Rui Zhu, Ming Zhan, Angel A Rodriguez, Wei Yang, Stephen Wong, Andreas Makris, Brian D Lehmann, Xi Chen, Ingrid Mayer and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 106 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
106citing 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

106 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

46 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

14 authors.

Ke-Da YuDepartment of Breast Surgery, Shanghai Cancer Center and Cancer Institute of Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Rui Zhu
Ming Zhan
Angel A Rodriguez
Wei Yang
Stephen Wong
Andreas Makris
Brian D Lehmann
Xi Chen
Ingrid Mayer
Jennifer A Pietenpol
Zhi-Ming Shao
W Fraser Symmans
Jenny C Chang

Funding

TUMOR SUPPRESSOR GENES IN BREAST CANCER DEVELOPMENTP50CA058183 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR SAN ANT · PI OSBORNE, C KENT · 1992 to 2012
$30.9M
The Core of the Computational BiologyU54CA149196 · NCI · METHODIST HOSPITAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI WONG, STEPHEN TC · 2010 to 2015
$10.6M
Targeting Notch, PI3K-AKT and Other Novel Pathways in Breast Cancer Stem CellsR01CA138197 · NCI · METHODIST HOSPITAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI CHANG, JENNY C-N, LEWIS, MICHAEL T. · 2008 to 2012
$2.3M
NCI NIH HHS P50 CA058183NCI NIH HHS R01 CA138197NCI NIH HHS U54 CA 149196NCI NIH HHS U54 CA149196
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePatients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy generally have worse outcome; however, some patients with residual tumor after neoadjuvant chemotherapy do not relapse. We hypothesize that there are subgroups of patients with chemoresistant TNBC with different prognosis. EXPERIMENTAL

designForty-nine chemoresistant cases from 111 patients with TNBC treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX) constituted the discovery cohort, and 25 chemoresistant samples from 47 neoadjuvant chemotherapy-treated TNBC (The Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX) were chosen for validation. Extended validation was carried out in 269 operable TNBC predicted to be chemoresistant by expression pattern from published datasets.

resultsWe established a seven-gene prognostic signature using dChip and gene set enrichment analyses. In the independent validation cohort, the classifier predicted correctly with positive predictive value of 75.0% and negative predictive value (i.e., relapse-free survival; RFS) of 76.9% at 3 years. Those predicted to relapse had a HR of 4.67 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.27-17.15] for relapse in 3 years. In extended validation, patients predicted not to relapse exhibited 3-year RFS of 78.9%, whereas the 3-year RFS was 48.5% for patients predicted to relapse, with HR of 2.61 (95% CI: 1.52-4.49). The TNBC subgroup that predicted to have relatively favorable prognosis was characterized by high expression of "luminal-like" genes [androgen-receptor (AR) and GATA3], whereas the subgroup with worse prognosis was characterized by expression of cancer stem-cell markers.

conclusionWe developed a clinically relevant signature for patients with chemoresistant TNBC. For these women, new therapeutic strategies like targeting AR activation or cancer stem cells may need to be developed.

Indexed as

Gene Expression ProfilingGene Expression Regulation, NeoplasticAdultCohort StudiesDrug Resistance, NeoplasmEstrogen Receptor betaFemaleGATA3 Transcription FactorHomeodomain ProteinsHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateKeratin-16Matrix Metalloproteinases, SecretedMiddle AgedNeoadjuvant TherapyNeoplasm, ResidualEstrogen Receptor betaGATA3 protein, humanGATA3 Transcription FactorGBX2 protein, humanHomeodomain ProteinsKeratin-16KRT16 protein, humanMatrix Metalloproteinases, SecretedMMP28 protein, humanReceptors, AndrogenWnt11 protein, humanWnt Proteins

Identifiers

PMID23549873
PMCPMC3655097

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.