Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29256013›Full record

ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2018

Enrichment of high-grade tumors in breast cancer gene expression studies.

M van Seijen, A L Mooyaart, L Mulder, M Hoogstraat, C A Drukker, C E Loo, B Pouw, G S Sonke, J Wesseling, E H Lips

Abstract readComparative StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

10 authors.

M van SeijenDepartment of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9348-239X
A L MooyaartDepartment of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
L MulderDepartment of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
M HoogstraatDepartment of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
C A DrukkerDepartment of Surgery, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
C E LooDepartment of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
B PouwDepartment of Surgery, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
G S SonkeDepartment of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
J WesselingDepartment of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
E H LipsDepartment of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. e.lips@nki.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeGene expression (GE) profiling for breast cancer classification and prognostication has become increasingly used in clinical diagnostics. GE profiling requires a reasonable tumor cell percentage and high-quality RNA. As a consequence, a certain amount of samples drop out. If tumor characteristics are different between samples included and excluded from GE profiling, this can lead to bias. Therefore, we assessed whether patient and tumor characteristics differ between tumors suitable or unsuitable for generating GE profiles in breast cancer.

methodsIn a consecutive cohort of 738 breast cancer patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy at the Netherlands Cancer Institute, GE profiling was performed. We compared tumor characteristics and treatment outcome between patients included and excluded from GE profiling. Results were validated in an independent cohort of 812 patients treated with primary surgery.

resultsGE analysis could be performed in 53% of the samples. Patients with tumor GE profiles more often had high-grade tumors [odds ratio 2.57 (95%CI 1.77-3.72), p < 0.001] and were more often lymph node positive [odds ratio 1.50 (95%CI 1.03-2.19), p = 0.035] compared to the group for which GE profiling was not possible. In the validation cohort, tumors suitable for gene expression analysis were more often high grade.

conclusionsIn our gene expression studies, tumors suitable for GE profiling had more often an unfavorable prognostic profile. Due to selection of samples with a high tumor percentage, we automatically select for tumors with specific features, i.e., tumors with a higher grade and lymph node involvement. It is important to be aware of this phenomenon when performing gene expression analysis in a research or clinical context.

Indexed as

Gene Expression Regulation, NeoplasticAntineoplastic AgentsBiopsy, Large-Core NeedleBreastBreast NeoplasmsDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleGene Expression ProfilingHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateLymphatic MetastasisMastectomyMiddle AgedNeoadjuvant TherapyNetherlandsPrognosisAntineoplastic AgentsBreast cancerGene expressionProfilingSelection biasTumor percentage

Identifiers

PMID29256013
PMCPMC5838139

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.