Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24785095›Full record

SynthesisMolecular oncology2014

OPG and PgR show similar cohort specific effects as prognostic factors in ER positive breast cancer.

Nicole Sänger, Eugen Ruckhäberle, Giampaolo Bianchini, Tomas Heinrich, Karin Milde-Langosch, Volkmar Müller, Achim Rody, Erich Franz Solomayer, Tanja Fehm, Uwe Holtrich and 2 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Molecular oncology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. 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

12 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Nicole SängerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Germany.
Eugen RuckhäberleDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Heinrich-Heine-University Duesseldorf, Germany.
Giampaolo BianchiniDepartment of Medical Oncology, Ospedale San Raffaele, 20132 Milan, Italy.
Tomas HeinrichDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Germany.
Karin Milde-LangoschDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Volkmar MüllerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Achim RodyDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Lübeck, Germany.
Erich Franz SolomayerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Medical School of Saarland, Homburg, Saar, Germany.
Tanja FehmDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Heinrich-Heine-University Duesseldorf, Germany.
Uwe HoltrichDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Germany.
Sven BeckerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Germany.
Thomas KarnDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Germany. Electronic address: t.karn@em.uni-frankfurt.de.
Goethe University Frankfurt · DEHeinrich Heine University Düsseldorf · DEUniversität Hamburg · DEIRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele · ITSaarland University · DEUniversity of Lübeck · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The RANK/RANKL/OPG pathway is well known for bone destruction in skeletal metastases but has also been implicated in osteoclast-independent roles in tumorigenesis and de novo metastasis. Experimental data suggest contribution of progesterone to tumorigenesis may be mediated by RANKL. Importantly, modulation of this pathway became possible through the availability of denosumab, an artificial counterpart of OPG, but significant gaps remain in the translation of preclinical findings on the pathway. We analyzed gene expression of RANK, RANKL and OPG from 40 Affymetrix datasets encompassing 4467 primary breast cancers and focused on ER positive disease. We did not observe a significant prognostic value of RANK and RANKL mRNA expression. In contrast, OPG was associated with a better prognosis among 1941 ER positive cancers (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.53-0.77; P < 0.0001) using a cutoff from its highly bimodal expression. We detected considerable heterogeneity regarding the prognostic value of OPG between different datasets. This heterogeneity could neither be attributed to technical reasons nor to differences in standard clinical parameters or treatments of the cohorts. Interestingly, the prognostic value of the progesterone receptor and of OPG showed similar cohort specific effects. Still both factors were no surrogates for each other but contributed independent prognostic value in multivariate analyses. Thus, both OPG and PgR are independently associated with good prognosis in ER positive breast cancer. However both markers share common cohort specific differences in contrast to proliferation markers as Ki67 which may be based on the underlying biology.

Indexed as

TranscriptomeBiomarkers, TumorBreastBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMiddle AgedOsteoprotegerinPrognosisRANK LigandReceptor Activator of Nuclear Factor-kappa BReceptors, EstrogenReceptors, ProgesteroneRNA, MessengerBiomarkers, TumorOsteoprotegerinRANK LigandReceptor Activator of Nuclear Factor-kappa BReceptors, EstrogenReceptors, ProgesteroneRNA, MessengerBreast cancerCohort biasDataset poolingGene expression profilingOsteoprotegerinProgesteron receptorRANKRANKL

Identifiers

PMID24785095
PMCPMC5528573
OpenAlexW2124246992

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.