Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27774765›Full record

ReviewCancer medicine2016

Progress in the clinical detection of heterogeneity in breast cancer.

Jun-Long Song, Chuang Chen, Jing-Ping Yuan, Sheng-Rong Sun

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancer medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

4 authors.

Jun-Long SongDepartment of Breast and Thyroid Surgery, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, Hubei, 430060, China.
Chuang ChenDepartment of Breast and Thyroid Surgery, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, Hubei, 430060, China.
Jing-Ping YuanDepartment of Pathology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, Hubei, 430060, China.
Sheng-Rong SunDepartment of Breast and Thyroid Surgery, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, Hubei, 430060, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Breast cancer is currently the most common form of cancer and the second-leading cause of death from cancer in women. Though considerable progress has been made in the treatment of breast cancer, the heterogeneity of tumors (both inter- and intratumor) remains a considerable diagnostic and prognostic challenge. From clinical observation to genetic mutations, the history of understanding the heterogeneity of breast cancer is lengthy and detailed. Effectively detecting heterogeneity in breast cancer is important during treatment. Various methods of depicting this heterogeneity are now available and include genetic, pathologic, and imaging analysis. These methods allow characterization of the heterogeneity of breast cancer on a genetic level, providing greater insight during the process of establishing an effective therapeutic plan. This study reviews how the understanding of tumor heterogeneity in breast cancer evolved, and further summarizes recent advances in the detection and monitoring of this heterogeneity in patients with breast cancer.

Indexed as

AnimalsBreast NeoplasmsDiagnostic ImagingFemaleGenetic HeterogeneityGenetic TestingGenomicsImmunohistochemistryMolecular ImagingBreast cancergenomic analysisheterogeneityimaging analysispathologic analysis

Identifiers

PMID27774765
PMCPMC5224851

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.