Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31741713›Full record

ArticleOncotarget2019

SNiPER: a novel hypermethylation biomarker panel for liquid biopsy based early breast cancer detection.

Jolein Mijnes, Janina Tiedemann, Julian Eschenbruch, Janina Gasthaus, Sarah Bringezu, Dirk Bauerschlag, Nicolai Maass, Norbert Arnold, Jörg Weimer, Tobias Anzeneder and 12 more

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Oncotarget, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Omics Technologies Improving Breast Cancer Research and Diagnostics.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

22 authors.

Jolein MijnesMolecular Oncology Group, Institute of Pathology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Janina TiedemannMolecular Oncology Group, Institute of Pathology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Julian EschenbruchMolecular Oncology Group, Institute of Pathology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Janina GasthausMolecular Oncology Group, Institute of Pathology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Sarah BringezuMolecular Oncology Group, Institute of Pathology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Dirk BauerschlagDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Medical Centre Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
Nicolai MaassDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Medical Centre Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
Norbert ArnoldDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Medical Centre Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
Jörg WeimerDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Medical Centre Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
Tobias AnzenederPatients' Tumor Bank of Hope (PATH-Biobank) Foundation, München, Germany.
Peter A FaschingDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany.
Matthias RübnerDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany.
Benjamin BrunoDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics Luisenhospital, Aachen, Germany.
Uwe HeindrichsDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics Luisenhospital, Aachen, Germany.
Jennifer FreresDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics Luisenhospital, Aachen, Germany.
Hanna SchulzMolecular Oncology Group, Institute of Pathology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Ralf-Dieter HilgersInstitute of Medical Statistics, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Nadina Ortiz-BrüchleMolecular Oncology Group, Institute of Pathology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Sonja von SerenyiMolecular Oncology Group, Institute of Pathology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Ruth KnüchelMolecular Oncology Group, Institute of Pathology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Vera KlotenMolecular Oncology Group, Institute of Pathology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Edgar DahlMolecular Oncology Group, Institute of Pathology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMammography is the gold standard for early breast cancer detection, but shows important limitations. Blood-based approaches on basis of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) provide minimally invasive screening tools to characterize epigenetic alterations of tumor suppressor genes and could serve as a liquid biopsy, complementing mammography.

methodsPotential biomarkers were identified from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), using HumanMethylation450-BeadChip data. Promoter methylation status was evaluated quantitatively by pyrosequencing in a serum test cohort (

results

conclusionsAlthough liquid biopsy remains challenging, a combination of

Indexed as

breast cancerdiscriminative CpG dinucleotidesearly detectionhypermethylationliquid biopsy

Identifiers

PMID31741713
PMCPMC6849652

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.