Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26276750›Full record

Trial reportCancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.)2015

Double-Blind Randomized 12-Month Soy Intervention Had No Effects on Breast MRI Fibroglandular Tissue Density or Mammographic Density.

Anna H Wu, Darcy Spicer, Agustin Garcia, Chiu-Chen Tseng, Linda Hovanessian-Larsen, Pulin Sheth, Sue Ellen Martin, Debra Hawes, Christy Russell, Heather MacDonald and 4 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Targeting Breast Cancer Stem Cells Using Naturally Occurring Phytoestrogens.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Microbial monotherapy withExpert review of neurotherapeutics · 2019
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. The "Gut Feeling": Breaking Down the Role of Gut Microbiome in Multiple Sclerosis.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2018
    Review
  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

14 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Anna H WuDepartment of Preventive Medicine, University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California. annawu@usc.edu.
Darcy SpicerDepartment of Medicine, University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California.
Agustin GarciaHematology Oncology, Louisiana State University, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Chiu-Chen TsengDepartment of Preventive Medicine, University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California.
Linda Hovanessian-LarsenDepartment of Radiology, University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California.
Pulin ShethDepartment of Radiology, University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California.
Sue Ellen MartinDepartment of Pathology, University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California.
Debra HawesDepartment of Pathology, University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California.
Christy RussellDepartment of Medicine, University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California.
Heather MacDonaldDepartment of Medicine, University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California.
Debu TripathyMBreast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Min-Ying SuTu and Yuen Center for Functional Onco-Imaging, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California.
Giske UrsinDepartment of Preventive Medicine, University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California. Department of Nutrition, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Malcolm C PikeDepartment of Preventive Medicine, University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
University of Oslo · NO

Funding

USC/NORRIS COMPREHENSIVE CANCER CENTER (CORE) SUPPORTP30CA014089 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI Fumito Ito · 1985 to 2026
$181.4M
Univ.of Calif., Irvine Cancer Center Support GrantP30CA062203 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI Christine Hui · 1994 to 2026
$57.9M
Translational Research Support CoreP30ES007048 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI Joseph Leo Wiemels · 1996 to 2026
$46.4M
Prediction of Neoadjuvant Chemo Pathological Response Using MRI MarkersR01CA127927 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI SU, MIN-YING L. · 2008 to 2017
$5.0M
NCI NIH HHS 2P30 CA14089-26NCI NIH HHS P30 CA014089NCI NIH HHS P30 CA062203NCI NIH HHS R01 CA127927NIEHS NIH HHS P30 ES007048NIEHS NIH HHS P30 ES07048
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Soy supplementation by patients with breast cancer remains controversial. No controlled intervention studies have investigated the effects of soy supplementation on mammographic density in patients with breast cancer. We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled intervention study in previously treated patients with breast cancer (n = 66) and high-risk women (n = 29). We obtained digital mammograms and breast MRI scans at baseline and after 12 months of daily soy (50 mg isoflavones per day; n = 46) or placebo (n = 49) tablet supplementation. The total breast area (MA) and the area of mammographic density (MD) on the mammogram were measured using a validated computer-assisted method, and mammographic density percent (MD% = 100 × MD/MA) was determined. A well-tested computer algorithm was used to quantitatively measure the total breast volume (TBV) and fibroglandular tissue volume (FGV) on the breast MRI, and the FGV percent (FGV% = 100 × FGV/TBV) was calculated. On the basis of plasma soy isoflavone levels, compliance was excellent. Small decreases in MD% measured by the ratios of month 12 to baseline levels were seen in the soy (0.95) and the placebo (0.87) groups; these changes did not differ between the treatments (P = 0.38). Small decreases in FGV% were also found in both the soy (0.90) and the placebo (0.92) groups; these changes also did not differ between the treatments (P = 0.48). Results were comparable in patients with breast cancer and high-risk women. We found no evidence that soy supplementation would decrease mammographic density and that MRI might be more sensitive to changes in density than mammography.

Indexed as

Dietary SupplementsAdultAgedBreast DensityBreast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Ductal, BreastCarcinoma, Intraductal, NoninfiltratingDouble-Blind MethodFemaleGlycine maxHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMammary Glands, HumanMiddle AgedRadiographySoybean ProteinsSoybean Proteins

Identifiers

PMID26276750
PMCPMC4596769
OpenAlexW1831503217

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.