Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27876019›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2016

A systematic comparison of copy number alterations in four types of female cancer.

Fatemeh Kaveh, Lars O Baumbusch, Daniel Nebdal, Anne-Lise Børresen-Dale, Ole Christian Lingjærde, Hege Edvardsen, Vessela N Kristensen, Hiroko K Solvang

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. PROTACs in Ovarian Cancer: Current Advancements and Future Perspectives.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. FAK in Cancer: From Mechanisms to Therapeutic Strategies.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Fatemeh KavehDepartment of Genetics, Institute for Cancer Research, Oslo University Hospital Radiumhospitalet, Oslo, Norway.
Lars O BaumbuschDepartment of Genetics, Institute for Cancer Research, Oslo University Hospital Radiumhospitalet, Oslo, Norway.
Daniel NebdalDepartment of Genetics, Institute for Cancer Research, Oslo University Hospital Radiumhospitalet, Oslo, Norway.
Anne-Lise Børresen-DaleDepartment of Genetics, Institute for Cancer Research, Oslo University Hospital Radiumhospitalet, Oslo, Norway.
Ole Christian LingjærdeDepartment of Genetics, Institute for Cancer Research, Oslo University Hospital Radiumhospitalet, Oslo, Norway.
Hege EdvardsenDepartment of Genetics, Institute for Cancer Research, Oslo University Hospital Radiumhospitalet, Oslo, Norway.
Vessela N KristensenDepartment of Genetics, Institute for Cancer Research, Oslo University Hospital Radiumhospitalet, Oslo, Norway. v.n.kristensen@medisin.uio.no.
Hiroko K SolvangMarine Mammals Research Group, Institute of Marine Research, Bergen, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDetection and localization of genomic alterations and breakpoints are crucial in cancer research. The purpose of this study was to investigate, in a methodological and biological perspective, different female, hormone-dependent cancers to identify common and diverse DNA aberrations, genes, and pathways.

methodsIn this work, we analyzed tissue samples from patients with breast (n = 112), ovarian (n = 74), endometrial (n = 84), or cervical (n = 76) cancer. To identify genomic aberrations, the Circular Binary Segmentation (CBS) and Piecewise Constant Fitting (PCF) algorithms were used and segmentation thresholds optimized. The Genomic Identification of Significant Targets in Cancer (GISTIC) algorithm was applied to the segmented data to identify significantly altered regions and the associated genes were analyzed by Ingenuity Pathway Analysis (IPA) to detect over-represented pathways and functions within the identified gene sets. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Analyses of high-resolution copy number alterations in four different female cancer types are presented. For appropriately adjusted segmentation parameters the two segmentation algorithms CBS and PCF performed similarly. We identified one region at 8q24.3 with focal aberrations that was altered at significant frequency across all four cancer types. Considering both, broad regions and focal peaks, three additional regions with gains at significant frequency were revealed at 1p21.1, 8p22, and 13q21.33, respectively. Several of these events involve known cancer-related genes, like PPP2R2A, PSCA, PTP4A3, and PTK2. In the female reproductive system (ovarian, endometrial, and cervix [OEC]), we discovered three common events: copy number gains at 5p15.33 and 15q11.2, further a copy number loss at 8p21.2. Interestingly, as many as 75% of the aberrations (75% amplifications and 86% deletions) identified by GISTIC were specific for just one cancer type and represented distinct molecular pathways.

conclusionsOur results disclose that some prominent copy number changes are shared in the four examined female, hormone-dependent cancer whereas others are definitive to specific cancer types.

Indexed as

DNA Copy Number VariationsGenetic Association StudiesBreast NeoplasmsCluster AnalysisDatabases, GeneticEndometrial NeoplasmsFemaleGene AmplificationGene DeletionGene Expression ProfilingGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenomicsHumansNeoplasmsOvarian NeoplasmsSex FactorsBreast cancerCervical cancerCopy number alterationEndometrial cancerFemale cancersGenomic Identification of Significant Targets in CancerOvarian cancer

Identifiers

PMID27876019
PMCPMC5120489

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.