Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31360834›Full record

ReviewJNCI cancer spectrum2017

Gene Expression Assays for Early-Stage Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer: Understanding the Differences.

Ana Tablante Nunes, Deborah E Collyar, Lyndsay N Harris

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JNCI cancer spectrum, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

3 authors.

Ana Tablante NunesNational Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (ATN); Patient Advocates in Research (PAIR), Danville, CA (DEC); National Cancer Institute, Cancer Diagnosis Program, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, MD (LNH).
Deborah E CollyarNational Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (ATN); Patient Advocates in Research (PAIR), Danville, CA (DEC); National Cancer Institute, Cancer Diagnosis Program, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, MD (LNH).
Lyndsay N HarrisNational Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (ATN); Patient Advocates in Research (PAIR), Danville, CA (DEC); National Cancer Institute, Cancer Diagnosis Program, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, MD (LNH).

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biomarkers are frequently used to guide decisions for treatment of early-stage estrogen (ER) and progesterone (PR) receptor-positive (ER/PR+) invasive breast cancers and have been incorporated into guidelines. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2016 guideline and a 2017 update were recently published to help clinicians use the tests available. ASCO currently recommends five tests that show evidence of clinical utility based on the parameters defined in the guideline. These include the 21-gene assay (Oncotype DX), Prediction of Analysis of Microarray-50 (PAM50), 12-gene risk score (Endopredict), Breast Cancer Index (BCI), and, most recently, the 70-gene assay (Mammaprint). However, discordance is often seen when the results of these gene assays are compared in a particular patient, for a number of reasons: the assays were initially developed to answer different questions, and the molecular makeup of each signature reflects this; the patient populations that were studied also differed and may not reflect the patient being tested; furthermore, the study design and statistical analysis varied between each test, leading to different scoring scales that may not be comparable. In this review, the background on the development and validation of these assays is discussed, and studies comparing them are reviewed. To provide guidance on which test to choose, the studies that support the level of evidence for clinical utility are presented. However, the choice of a particular test will also be influenced by socioeconomic factors, clinical factors, and patient preferences. We hope that a better understanding of the scientific and clinical rationale for each test will allow patients and providers to make optimal decisions for treatment of early-stage ER/PR+ breast cancer.

Identifiers

PMID31360834
PMCPMC6649766

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.