Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33108242›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology2021

Molecular Drivers of Onco

Richard Buus, Ivana Sestak, Ralf Kronenwett, Sean Ferree, Catherine A Schnabel, Frederick L Baehner, Elizabeth A Mallon, Jack Cuzick, Mitch Dowsett

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 69 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
69citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

69 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Evaluation of the Sensitivity to Endocrine Therapy Index and 21-Gene Breast Recurrence Score in the SWOG S8814 Trial.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2023
    Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Interplay of Interleukin-1Oncology research · 2026
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

9 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Richard BuusThe Breast Cancer Now Toby Robins Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3386-3465
Ivana SestakCentre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Ralf KronenwettMyriad International GmbH, Cologne, Germany.
Sean FerreeNanoString Technologies, Seattle, WA.
Catherine A SchnabelBiotheranostics, San Diego, CA.
Frederick L BaehnerGenomic Health, Redwood City, CA.ORCID 0000-0001-6883-1212
Elizabeth A MallonDepartment of Pathology, Southern General Hospital, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
Jack CuzickCentre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7420-7512
Mitch DowsettThe Breast Cancer Now Toby Robins Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4122-744X

Funding

Cancer Research UK 16891Cancer Research UK 5032Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe Onco PATIENTS AND

methodsAnalyses for RS, ROR, EP, and BCI were conducted by the manufacturers in the TransATAC sample collection that consisted of the tamoxifen or anastrozole arms of the ATAC trial. Estrogen receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative cases without chemotherapy treatment were included in which all four tests were available (n = 785). Clinicopathologic features included in some tests were excluded from the comparisons. Estrogen, proliferation, invasion, and HER2 module scores from RS were used to characterize the respective molecular features. Spearman correlation and analysis of variance tests were applied.

resultsThere were moderate to strong correlations among the four molecular scores (ρ = 0.63-0.74) except for RS versus ROR (ρ = 0.32) and RS versus BCI (ρ = 0.35). RS had strong negative correlation with its estrogen module (ρ = -0.79) and moderate positive correlation with its proliferation module (ρ = 0.36). RS's proliferation module explained 72.5% of ROR's variance, while the estrogen module explained only 0.6%. Most of EP's and BCI's variation was accounted for by the proliferation module (50.0% and 54.3%, respectively) and much less by the estrogen module (20.2% and 2.7%, respectively).

conclusionIn contrast to common understanding, RSs are determined more strongly by estrogen-related features and only weakly by proliferation markers. However, the EP, BCI, and particularly ROR scores are determined largely by proliferative features. These relationships help to explain the differences in the prognostic performance of the tests.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overAnastrozoleBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMiddle AgedNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPredictive Value of TestsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRisk AssessmentRNA, NeoplasmTamoxifenAnastrozoleRNA, NeoplasmTamoxifen

Identifiers

PMID33108242
PMCPMC8078458

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.