Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25825120›Full record

ArticleMolecular oncology2015

Robust BRCA1-like classification of copy number profiles of samples repeated across different datasets and platforms.

Philip C Schouten, Anita Grigoriadis, Thomas Kuilman, Hasan Mirza, Johnathan A Watkins, Saskia A Cooke, Ewald van Dyk, Tesa M Severson, Oscar M Rueda, Marlous Hoogstraat and 16 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular oncology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Ovarian Cancer-SpecificClinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2021
    Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Tandem duplications contribute to not one but two distinct phenotypes.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2016
    Article
  20. 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

26 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Philip C SchoutenDepartment of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Anita GrigoriadisBreakthrough Breast Cancer Research Unit, Department of Research Oncology, Guy's Hospital, King's College London School of Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Thomas KuilmanDivision of Molecular Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Hasan MirzaBreakthrough Breast Cancer Research Unit, Department of Research Oncology, Guy's Hospital, King's College London School of Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Johnathan A WatkinsBreakthrough Breast Cancer Research Unit, Department of Research Oncology, Guy's Hospital, King's College London School of Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Saskia A CookeBreakthrough Breast Cancer Research Unit, Department of Research Oncology, Guy's Hospital, King's College London School of Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Ewald van DykDepartment of Molecular Carcinogenesis, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Tesa M SeversonDepartment of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Oscar M RuedaCancer Research UK Cambridge Research Institute, Li Ka Shing Centre, Cambridge, UK.
Marlous HoogstraatDepartment of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Molecular Carcinogenesis, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands; Netherlands Center for Personalized Cancer Treatment, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Caroline V M VerhagenDivision of Biological Stress Response, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Rachael NatrajanThe Breakthrough Breast Cancer Research Centre, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
Suet-Feung ChinCancer Research UK Cambridge Research Institute, Li Ka Shing Centre, Cambridge, UK.
Esther H LipsDepartment of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Janneke KruizingaGenomics Core Facility, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Arno VeldsGenomics Core Facility, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Marja NieuwlandGenomics Core Facility, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Ron M KerkhovenGenomics Core Facility, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Oscar KrijgsmanDivision of Molecular Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Conchita VensDivision of Biological Stress Response, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Daniel PeeperDivision of Molecular Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Petra M NederlofDepartment of Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Carlos CaldasCancer Research UK Cambridge Research Institute, Li Ka Shing Centre, Cambridge, UK; Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK; Cambridge Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre and NIHR Cambridge Biomedical, Research Centre, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS, Cambridge, UK.
Andrew N TuttBreakthrough Breast Cancer Research Unit, Department of Research Oncology, Guy's Hospital, King's College London School of Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Lodewyk F WesselsDepartment of Molecular Carcinogenesis, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
Sabine C LinnDepartment of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands; Division of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: s.linn@nki.nl.
The Netherlands Cancer Institute · NLOncode Institute · NLCancer Research UK Cambridge Center · GBBreast Cancer Now · GBGuy's Hospital · GBKing's College London · GBUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NL

Funding

Cancer Research UK 16465Cancer Research UK 16942Medical Research Council MR/M008975/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Breast cancers with BRCA1 germline mutation have a characteristic DNA copy number (CN) pattern. We developed a test that assigns CN profiles to be 'BRCA1-like' or 'non-BRCA1-like', which refers to resembling a BRCA1-mutated tumor or resembling a tumor without a BRCA1 mutation, respectively. Approximately one third of the BRCA1-like breast cancers have a BRCA1 mutation, one third has hypermethylation of the BRCA1 promoter and one third has an unknown reason for being BRCA1-like. This classification is indicative of patients' response to high dose alkylating and platinum containing chemotherapy regimens, which targets the inability of BRCA1 deficient cells to repair DNA double strand breaks. We investigated whether this classification can be reliably obtained with next generation sequencing and copy number platforms other than the bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) array Comparative Genomic Hybridization (aCGH) on which it was originally developed. We investigated samples from 230 breast cancer patients for which a CN profile had been generated on two to five platforms, comprising low coverage CN sequencing, CN extraction from targeted sequencing panels (CopywriteR), Affymetrix SNP6.0, 135K/720K oligonucleotide aCGH, Affymetrix Oncoscan FFPE (MIP) technology, 3K BAC and 32K BAC aCGH. Pairwise comparison of genomic position-mapped profiles from the original aCGH platform and other platforms revealed concordance. For most cases, biological differences between samples exceeded the differences between platforms within one sample. We observed the same classification across different platforms in over 80% of the patients and kappa values of at least 0.36. Differential classification could be attributed to CN profiles that were not strongly associated to one class. In conclusion, we have shown that the genomic regions that define our BRCA1-like classifier are robustly measured by different CN profiling technologies, providing the possibility to retro- and prospectively investigate BRCA1-like classification across a wide range of CN platforms.

Indexed as

Datasets as TopicGene DosageGenes, BRCA1Breast NeoplasmsCohort StudiesComparative Genomic HybridizationDNA MethylationFemaleHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicBRCA1Breast cancerClassificationCopy number aberration profiles

Identifiers

PMID25825120
PMCPMC5528812
OpenAlexW2134694706

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.