Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28376177›Full record

ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2017

Progesterone Receptor Isoform Ratio: A Breast Cancer Prognostic and Predictive Factor for Antiprogestin Responsiveness.

Paola A Rojas, María May, Gonzalo R Sequeira, Andrés Elia, Michelle Alvarez, Paula Martínez, Pedro Gonzalez, Stephen Hewitt, Xiaping He, Charles M Perou and 5 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.6field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 66 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. The Role of Progesterone Receptors in Breast Cancer.Drug design, development and therapy · 2022
    Review
  18. Article
  19. 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

15 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Paola A RojasLaboratory of Hormonal Carcinogenesis, Instituto de Biología y Medicina Experimental (IBYME), Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), Buenos Aires, Argentina.
María MayLaboratory of Hormonal Carcinogenesis, Instituto de Biología y Medicina Experimental (IBYME), Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Gonzalo R SequeiraLaboratory of Hormonal Carcinogenesis, Instituto de Biología y Medicina Experimental (IBYME), Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Andrés EliaLaboratory of Hormonal Carcinogenesis, Instituto de Biología y Medicina Experimental (IBYME), Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Michelle AlvarezLaboratory of Hormonal Carcinogenesis, Instituto de Biología y Medicina Experimental (IBYME), Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Paula MartínezHospital de Agudos Magdalena V de Martínez, General Pacheco, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Pedro GonzalezHospital de Agudos Magdalena V de Martínez, General Pacheco, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Stephen HewittCenter for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Xiaping HeDepartment of Genetics, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Charles M PerouDepartment of Genetics, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Alfredo MolinoloMoores Cancer Center, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA.
Luz GibbonsInstituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Martin C AbbaCINIBA-CONICET, Escuela de Ciencias Médicas, UNLP, La Plata, Argentina.
Hugo GassHospital de Agudos Magdalena V de Martínez, General Pacheco, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Claudia LanariLaboratory of Hormonal Carcinogenesis, Instituto de Biología y Medicina Experimental (IBYME), Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), Buenos Aires, Argentina.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USExperimental Medicine and Biology Institute · ARCenter for Cancer Research · USUNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer CenterUniversity of California, San Diego · USConsejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas · ARNational Cancer Institute · US

Funding

Tissue Procurement & PathologyP50CA058223 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI CHARLES M PEROU · 1992 to 2026
$59.3M
NCI NIH HHS P50 CA058223
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Compelling evidence shows that progestins regulate breast cancer growth. Using preclinical models, we demonstrated that antiprogestins are inhibitory when the level of progesterone receptor isoform A (PR-A) is higher than that of isoform B (PR-B) and that they might stimulate growth when PR-B is predominant. The aims of this study were to investigate ex vivo responses to mifepristone (MFP) in breast carcinomas with different PR isoform ratios and to examine their clinical and molecular characteristics. Methods: We performed human breast cancer tissue culture assays (n = 36) to evaluate the effect of MFP on cell proliferation. PR isoform expression was determined by immunoblotting (n = 282). Tumors were categorized as PRA-H (PR-A/PR-B ≥ 1.2) or PRB-H (PR-A/PR-B ≤ 0.83). RNA was extracted for Ribo-Zero-Seq sequencing to evaluate differentially expressed genes. Subtypes and risk scores were predicted using the PAM50 gene set, the data analyzed using The Cancer Genome Atlas RNA-seq gene analysis and other publicly available gene expression data. Tissue microarrays were performed using paraffin-embedded tissues (PRA-H n = 53, PRB-H n = 24), and protein expression analyzed by immunohistochemistry. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: One hundred sixteen out of 222 (52.3%) PR+ tumors were PRA-H, and 64 (28.8%) PRB-H. Cell proliferation was inhibited by MFP in 19 of 19 tissue cultures from PRA-H tumors. A total of 139 transcripts related to proliferative pathways were differentially expressed in nine PRA-H and seven PRB-H tumors. PRB-H and PRA-H tumors were either luminal B or A phenotypes, respectively ( P = .03). PRB-H cases were associated with shorter relapse-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.71 to 6.20, P = .02) and distant metastasis-free survival (HR = 4.17, 95% CI = 2.18 to 7.97, P <  .001). PRB-H tumors showed increased tumor size ( P <  .001), Ki-67 levels ( P <  .001), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 expression ( P =  .04), high grades ( P =  .03), and decreased total PR ( P =  .004) compared with PRA-H tumors. MUC-2 ( P <  .001) and KRT6A ( P =  .02) were also overexpressed in PRB-H tumors. Conclusion: The PRA/PRB ratio is a prognostic and predictive factor for antiprogestin responsiveness in breast cancer.

Indexed as

AdultAgedBreast NeoplasmsCell ProliferationFemaleGene Expression ProfilingGene Expression Regulation, NeoplasticHormone AntagonistsHumansImmunoblottingImmunohistochemistryMiddle AgedMifepristoneOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisPredictive Value of TestsProgestinsHormone AntagonistsMifepristoneprogesterone receptor Aprogesterone receptor BProgestinsReceptors, Progesterone

Identifiers

PMID28376177
PMCPMC6059180
OpenAlexW2594460083

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.