Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27081639›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of clinical oncology2016

Estrogen receptor alpha gene amplification in breast cancer: 25 years of debate.

Frederik Holst

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of clinical oncology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Frontiers in oncology · 2020
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Clinical and Biological Significance ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2019
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Association ofJournal of oncology · 2019
    Article
  12. Review
  13. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Frederik HolstFrederik Holst, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center, Boston, MA 02215, United States.
Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Twenty-five years ago, Nembrot and colleagues reported amplification of the estrogen receptor alpha gene (ESR1) in breast cancer, initiating a broad and still ongoing scientific debate on the prevalence and clinical significance of this genetic aberration, which affects one of the most important genes in breast cancer. Since then, a multitude of studies on this topic has been published, covering a wide range of divergent results and arguments. The reported prevalence of this alteration in breast cancer ranges from 0% to 75%, suggesting that ESR1 copy number analysis is hampered by technical and interpreter issues. To date, two major issues related to ESR1 amplification remain to be conclusively addressed: (1) The extent to which abundant amounts of messenger RNA can mimic amplification in standard fluorescence in situ hybridization assays in the analysis of strongly expressed genes like ESR1, and (2) the clinical relevance of ESR1 amplification: Such relevance is strongly disputed, with data showing predictive value for response as well as for resistance of the cancer to anti-estrogen therapies, or for subsequent development of cancers in the case of precursor lesions that display amplification of ESR1. This review provides a comprehensive summary of the various views on ESR1 amplification, and highlights explanations for the contradictions and conflicting data that could inform future ESR1 research.

Indexed as

Breast cancerEstrogen receptor alpha geneGene amplificationMethodologyTamoxifen

Identifiers

PMID27081639
PMCPMC4826962
OpenAlexW2330022227

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.