ArticlePloS one2015
Association of type 2 diabetes genetic variants with breast cancer survival among Chinese women.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Postdiagnosis body fatness, weight change and breast cancer prognosis: Global Cancer Update Program (CUP global) systematic literature review and meta-analysis.International journal of cancer · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Genetic polymorphisms of diabetes-related genes, their interaction with diabetes status, and breast cancer incidence and mortality: The Long Island Breast Cancer Study Project.Molecular carcinogenesis · 2019Article
- Association between genetic risk score for telomere length and risk of breast cancer.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2016Article
- Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate whether the genetic susceptibility of T2D was associated with overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) outcomes for breast cancer (BC).
methodsIncluded in the study were 6346 BC patients who participated in three population-based epidemiological studies of BC and were genotyped with either GWAS or Exome-chip. We constructed a genetic risk score (GRS) for diabetes using risk variants identified from the GWAS catalog (http://genome.gov/gwastudies) that were associated with T2D risk at a minimum significance level of P ≤ 5.0E-8 among Asian population and evaluated its associations with BC outcomes with Cox proportional hazards models.
resultsDuring a median follow-up of 8.08 years (range, 0.01-16.95 years), 1208 deaths were documented in 6346 BC patients. Overall, the diabetes GRS was not associated with OS and DFS. Analyses stratified by estrogen receptor status (ER) showed that the diabetes GRS was inversely associated with OS among women with ER- but not in women with ER+ breast cancer; the multivariable adjusted HR was 1.38 (95% CI: 1.05-1.82) when comparing the highest to the lowest GRS quartiles. The association of diabetes GRS with OS varied by diabetes status (P for interaction <0.01). In women with history of diabetes, higher diabetes GRS was significantly associated with worse OS, with HR of 2.22 (95% CI: 1.28-3.88) for the highest vs. lowest quartile, particularly among women with an ER- breast cancer, with corresponding HR being 4.59 (95% CI: 1.04-20.28). No significant association between the diabetes GRS and OS was observed across different BMI and PR groups.
conclusionsOur study suggested that genetic susceptibility of T2D was positively associated with total mortality among women with ER- breast cancer, particularly among subjects with a history of diabetes. Additional studies are warranted to verify the associations and elucidate the underlying biological mechanism.
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.