Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25961141›Full record

ArticleCancer biology & therapy2015

8p deletion is strongly linked to poor prognosis in breast cancer.

P Lebok, A Mittenzwei, M Kluth, C Özden, B Taskin, K Hussein, K Möller, A Hartmann, A Lebeau, I Witzel and 14 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer biology & therapy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Glutathione reductase (American journal of cancer research · 2019
    Article
  19. 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

24 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.

P Leboka Institute of Pathology; University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf ; Hamburg , Germany.
A Mittenzwei
M Kluth
C Özden
B Taskin
K Hussein
K Möller
A Hartmann
A Lebeau
I Witzel
S Mahner
L Wölber
F Jänicke
S Geist
P Paluchowski
C Wilke
U Heilenkötter
R Simon
G Sauter
L Terracciano
R Krech
A von der Assen
V Müller
E Burandt
University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf · DEUniversität Hamburg · DERegio Kliniken · DETaipei Institute of Pathology · TWBreast Center · CHKlinikum Itzehoe · DEUniversity of Basel · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Deletions of chromosome 8p occur frequently in breast cancers, but analyses of its clinical relevance have been limited to small patient cohorts and provided controversial results. A tissue microarray with 2,197 breast cancers was thus analyzed by fluorescence in-situ hybridization using an 8p21 probe in combination with a centromere 8 reference probe. 8p deletions were found in 50% of carcinomas with no special type, 67% of papillary, 28% of tubular, 37% of lobular cancers and 56% of cancers with medullary features. Deletions were always heterozygous. 8p deletion was significantly linked to advanced tumor stage (P < 0.0001), high-grade (P < 0.0001), high tumor cell proliferation (Ki67 Labeling Index; P < 0.0001), and shortened overall survival (P < 0.0001). For example, 8p deletion was seen in 32% of 290 grade 1, 43% of 438 grade 2, and 65% of 427 grade 3 cancers. In addition, 8p deletions were strongly linked to amplification of MYC (P < 0.0001), HER2 (P < 0.0001), and CCND1 (p = 0.001), but inversely associated with ER receptor expression (p = 0.0001). Remarkably, 46.5% of 8p-deleted cancers harbored amplification of at least one of the analyzed genes as compared to 27.5% amplifications in 8p-non-deleted cancers (P < 0.0001). In conclusion, 8p deletion characterizes a subset of particularly aggressive breast cancers. As 8p deletions are easy to analyze, this feature appears to be highly suited for future DNA based prognostic breast cancer panels. The strong link of 8p deletion with various gene amplifications raises the possibility of a role for regulating genomic stability.

Indexed as

Chromosome DeletionGene AmplificationAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBreast NeoplasmsChromosomes, Human, Pair 8Cyclin D1Erb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesFemaleGenes, mycHumansImmunohistochemistryIn Situ Hybridization, FluorescenceKi-67 AntigenMiddle AgedCCND1 protein, humanCyclin D1Erb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesKi-67 Antigen8pbreast cancerdeletionER, estrogen receptorFISHFISH, fluorescence in situ hybridizationHER2, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2Ki67LI, Ki67 Labeling indexLOH, loss of heterozygosityNGS, next generation sequencingNST, no special typepN, nodal stageprognosisPR, progesterone receptorpT, pathological tumor stageTMA, tissue microarray

Identifiers

PMID25961141
PMCPMC4623106
OpenAlexW1559641548

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.