Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31131397›Full record

ReviewAnnals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology2019

Avoiding over- and undertreatment in patients with resected node-positive breast cancer with the use of gene expression signatures: are we there yet?

A Matikas, T Foukakis, S Swain, J Bergh

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Breast cancer during pregnancy-The oncologist's point of view.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2024
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Development of Tier 2 LC-MRM-MS protein quantification methods for liquid biopsies.Journal of mass spectrometry and advances in the clinical lab · 2023
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Prognostic Significance ofDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

A MatikasDepartment of Oncology/Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm; Breast Center, Theme Cancer, Karolinska University Hospital, Solna, Stockholm, Sweden. Electronic address: alexios.matikas@ki.se.
T FoukakisDepartment of Oncology/Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm; Breast Center, Theme Cancer, Karolinska University Hospital, Solna, Stockholm, Sweden.
S SwainGeorgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington; MedStar Health, Washington, USA.
J BerghDepartment of Oncology/Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm; Breast Center, Theme Cancer, Karolinska University Hospital, Solna, Stockholm, Sweden.
Karolinska University Hospital · SEGeorgetown University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prediction of benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy following resection of early breast cancer and, as a result, proper selection of candidates remains an elusive goal since the relative magnitude of benefit is the same regardless of the presence of clinicopathologic factors. Multiple studies, including randomized trials, establish the role of certain gene expression signatures in node-negative disease since they predict the risk of breast cancer relapse being so low that adjuvant chemotherapy can be omitted. In contrast, more limited data are available in higher risk, node-positive breast cancer patients, making the exclusion of adjuvant chemotherapy potentially hazardous. 'Prospective-retrospective' studies and limited prospective data show that several signatures, namely Oncotype Dx, MammaPrint, Prosigna, EndoPredict and Breast Cancer Index, select with different levels of success node-positive patients at very low risk for distant recurrence despite not receiving chemotherapy, although the long-term follow-up is still awaited. Pending, however the publication of the results from ongoing randomized studies which enroll patients with node-positive disease, major caution is warranted. Improper use and misinterpretation of these transcriptomic profiles can lead to undertreatment and exposure of patients to unnecessary risks resulting in increased breast cancer mortality for patients with axillary node-positive disease. With this review we critically discuss the available data on gene expression signatures that are used in clinical practice and offer practical recommendations regarding the management of patients with ER-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, node-positive breast cancer.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsBreast NeoplasmsDecision MakingFemaleGene Expression ProfilingHumansLymph NodesMastectomyPrecision MedicinePrognosisRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTranscriptomeadjuvant chemotherapybreast cancergene expression signaturenode-positiveOncotype Dx

Identifiers

PMID31131397
PMCPMC6695578
OpenAlexW2936908826

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.