ReviewInternational journal of molecular sciences2018
Perspective Insight into Future Potential Fusion Gene Transcript Biomarker Candidates in Breast Cancer.
Review in International journal of molecular sciences, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comprehensive Molecular and Genomic Analysis of NCI-MATCH Subprotocol Y: Capivasertib in Patients With anJCO precision oncology · 2025Article
- Genetic Testing Enhances the Precision Diagnosis and Treatment of Breast Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- A Genomic Information Management System for Maintaining Healthy Genomic States and Application of Genomic Big Data in Clinical Research.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Article
- The prognostic and predictive value of ESR1 fusion gene transcripts in primary breast cancer.BMC cancer · 2022Article
- Article
- SVExpress: identifying gene features altered recurrently in expression with nearby structural variant breakpoints.BMC bioinformatics · 2021Article
- Identification of dual histone modification-binding protein interaction by combining mass spectrometry and isothermal titration calorimetric analysis.Journal of advanced research · 2020Article
- A Roadmap Toward the Definition of Actionable Tumor-Specific Antigens.Frontiers in immunology · 2020Review
- Article
- RNASeq Analysis for Accurate Identification of Fusion Partners in Tumor Specific Translocations Detected by Standard FISH Probes in Hematologic Malignancies.Clinical pathology (Thousand Oaks, Ventura County, Calif.)Article
- Protein kinase C fusion proteins are paradoxically loss of function in cancer.The Journal of biological chemistryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Next generation sequencing has accelerated the discovery of a variety of new fusion gene types in clinical breast cancer samples by analyzing cancer genomes and transcriptomes. Although previous studies have focused on a few clinically validated oncogenic fusion genes as diagnostic and therapeutic targets in breast cancer, a perspective consideration has not been given thus far for a plethora of breast cancer fusion genes, which are being newly identified at an overwhelmingly increasing pace. In this perspective review, we discuss diverse fusion gene types recently identified in a variety of breast cancer subtypes, including breast clinical cancer samples in TCGA (The Cancer Genome Atlas) database. This perspective review will confer fresh and promising guidance onto breast cancer surgeons, clinical oncologists, and tumor biologists in determining research directions for seeking and developing novel fusion gene biomarkers for breast cancer diagnostics and therapeutic treatment in upcoming years.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.