Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26511489›Full record

Trial reportCancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.)2015

Sulforaphane Bioavailability and Chemopreventive Activity in Women Scheduled for Breast Biopsy.

Lauren L Atwell, Zhenzhen Zhang, Motomi Mori, Paige Farris, John T Vetto, Arpana M Naik, Karen Y Oh, Philippe Thuillier, Emily Ho, Jackilen Shannon

Open access · greenAbstract 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 72 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
72citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.0field-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

72 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 121 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. ATF3 aggravates kidney fibrosis via HDAC6-dependent epigenetic reprogramming.International journal of biological sciences · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

12 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lauren L Atwell *School of Biological and Population Health Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, 97331.
Zhenzhen Zhang *School of Public Health, Oregon Health & Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, Portland, OR 97239.
Motomi MoriSchool of Public Health, Oregon Health & Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, Portland, OR 97239.
Paige FarrisSchool of Public Health, Oregon Health & Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, Portland, OR 97239.
John T VettoDivision of Surgical Oncology, Oregon Health & Science University, 3303 SW Bond Ave, Portland, OR 97239.
Arpana M NaikDivision of Surgical Oncology, Oregon Health & Science University, 3303 SW Bond Ave, Portland, OR 97239.
Karen Y OhDepartment of Radiology, Oregon Health & Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, Portland, OR 97239.
Philippe ThuillierSchool of Public Health, Oregon Health & Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, Portland, OR 97239.
Emily HoLinus Pauling Institute, Oregon State University, 307 Linus Pauling Science Center, Corvallis, OR 97331.
Jackilen ShannonSchool of Public Health, Oregon Health & Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, Portland, OR 97239.
Oregon Health & Science University · USOregon State University · US

Funding

Understanding the origins of rapid recurrence of pancreatic cancer after resectionP30CA069533 · NCI · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI Grace B Gill · 1997 to 2026
$60.5M
Oregon Clinical and Translational Research InstituteUL1TR000128 · NCATS · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI ELLISON, DAVID H · 2012 to 2015
$28.7M
Reducing Susceptibility to Environmental Stress Throughout the Life SpanP30ES000210 · NIEHS · OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY · PI BECKMAN, JOSEPH S · 1985 to 2015
$21.4M
Transplacental Chemoprevention of Lung Tumors and LymphomasP01CA090890 · NCI · TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCE CTR · PI DASHWOOD, RODERICK H · 2003 to 2014
$14.2M
Sulforaphane: A Dietary HDAC Inhibitor and Prevention of DCIS ProgressionR21CA132236 · NCI · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI SHANNON, JACKILEN · 2009 to 2011
$541k
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000128NCI NIH HHS P01 CA090890NCI NIH HHS P30 CA069533NCI NIH HHS R21 CA132236NCI NIH HHS R21 CA132236-01A2NIEHS NIH HHS P30 ES000210
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Epidemiologic studies suggest a protective effect of cruciferous vegetables on breast cancer. Sulforaphane (SFN), an active food component derived from crucifers, has been shown to be effective in breast cancer chemoprevention. This study evaluated the chemopreventive effect of SFN on selective biomarkers from blood and breast tissues. In a 2- to 8-week double-blinded, randomized controlled trial, 54 women with abnormal mammograms and scheduled for breast biopsy were randomized to consume a placebo or a glucoraphanin (GFN) supplement providing SFN (n = 27). Plasma and urinary SFN metabolites, peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) histone deacetylase (HDAC) activity, and tissue biomarkers (H3K18ac, H3K9ac, HDAC3, HDAC6, Ki-67, p21) were measured before and after the intervention in benign, ductal carcinoma in situ, or invasive ductal carcinoma breast tissues. Within the supplement group, Ki-67 (P = 0.003) and HDAC3 (P = 0.044) levels significantly decreased in benign tissue. Pre-to-postintervention changes in these biomarkers were not significantly different between treatment groups after multiple comparison adjustment. GFN supplementation was associated with a significant decrease in PBMC HDAC activity (P = 0.04). No significant associations were observed between SFN and examined tissue biomarkers when comparing treatment groups. This study provides evidence that GFN supplementation for a few weeks is safe but may not be sufficient for producing changes in breast tissue tumor biomarkers. Future studies employing larger sample sizes should evaluate alternative dosing and duration regimens to inform dietary SFN strategies in breast cancer chemoprevention.

Indexed as

Anticarcinogenic AgentsBiological AvailabilityBiomarkers, TumorBreast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Intraductal, NoninfiltratingChemopreventionDietary SupplementsDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansImmunohistochemistryIsothiocyanatesMass SpectrometrySulfoxidesAnticarcinogenic AgentsBiomarkers, TumorIsothiocyanatessulforaphaneSulfoxides

Identifiers

PMID26511489
PMCPMC4670794
OpenAlexW2260296419

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.