ArticleBreast cancer research : BCR2018
Clonal relatedness in tumour pairs of breast cancer patients.
Article in Breast cancer research : BCR, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Identifying Locally Recurrent Versus Second Primary Breast Cancer: Genomic Versus Clinical Criteria from Carolina Breast Cancer Study Phase III.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2026Trial
- Clinical Utility of Oncotype DX Testing in Synchronous Bilateral and Unilateral Multifocal Breast Cancer.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Single-Cell Expression Analysis of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Identifies Complex Genotypic-Phenotypic Relationships Altering Epithelial Composition.Cancer research · 2025Article
- Misclassification of second primary and recurrent breast cancer in the surveillance epidemiology and end results registry.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2025Article
- Analysis of Shared Variants between Cancer Biospecimens.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2025Article
- Computational Methods Summarizing Mutational Patterns in Cancer: Promise and Limitations for Clinical Applications.Cancers · 2023Review
- Evaluating statistical approaches to define clonal origin of tumours using bulk DNA sequencing: context is everything.Genome biology · 2022Review
- Histologic Discordance Between Primary Tumor and Nodal Metastasis in Breast Cancer: Solving a Clinical Conundrum in the Era of Genomics.The oncologist · 2021Article
- Genetic alterations associated with multiple primary malignancies.Cancer medicine · 2021Article
- Mitochondrial DNA analysis efficiently contributes to the identification of metastatic contralateral breast cancers.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2021Article
- Analysis of Copy-Number Variations and Feline Mammary Carcinoma Survival.Scientific reports · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMolecular classification of tumour clonality is currently not evaluated in multiple invasive breast carcinomas, despite evidence suggesting common clonal origins. There is no consensus about which type of data (e.g. copy number, mutation, histology) and especially which statistical method is most suitable to distinguish clonal recurrences from independent primary tumours.
methodsThirty-seven invasive breast tumour pairs were stratified according to laterality and time interval between the diagnoses of the two tumours. In a multi-omics approach, tumour clonality was analysed by integrating clinical characteristics (n = 37), DNA copy number (n = 37), DNA methylation (n = 8), gene expression microarray (n = 7), RNA sequencing (n = 3), and SNP genotyping data (n = 3). Different statistical methods, e.g. the diagnostic similarity index (SI), were used to classify the tumours as clonally related recurrences or independent primary tumours.
resultsThe SI and hierarchical clustering showed similar tendencies and the highest concordance with the other methods. Concordant evidence for tumour clonality was found in 46% (17/37) of patients. Notably, no association was found between the current clinical guidelines and molecular tumour features.
conclusionsA more accurate classification of clonal relatedness between multiple breast tumours may help to mitigate treatment failure and relapse by integrating tumour-associated molecular features, clinical parameters, and statistical methods. Guidelines need to be defined with exact thresholds to standardise clonality testing in a routine diagnostic setting.
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.