SynthesisBMC cancer2020
Prognostic role of vitamin D receptor in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- The effects of vitamin D on all-cause mortality in different diseases: an evidence-map and umbrella review of 116 randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in nutrition · 2023Pooled it
- Prognostic role of vitamin D receptor in digestive system tumours: A systematic review and preliminary meta-analysis.PloS one · 2023Pooled it
- Post-Diagnosis Vitamin D Supplement Use and Survival among Cancer Patients: A Meta-Analysis.Nutrients · 2022Pooled it
- Review
- Vitamin D Receptor in Cancer: Biological Functions, Mechanistic Insights, and Clinical Relevance.Cancer management and research · 2026Review
- Investigating the level of vitamin D receptor gene expression in two tumoral and healthy breast tissues in breast cancer patients and its association with prognostic factors.Journal of the Egyptian National Cancer Institute · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Vitamin D receptor is associated with prognostic characteristics of breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy-an observational study.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Association Between Expression of Vitamin D Receptor and Insulin-Like Growth Factor 1 Receptor Among Breast Cancer Patients.World journal of oncology · 2023Article
- Vitamin D and breast cancer risk: A systematic review and meta-analysis in Iranian patients.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2022Review
- Vitamin D and Breast Cancer: Mechanistic Update.JBMR plus · 2021Article
- Type 1 Nuclear Receptor Activity in Breast Cancer: Translating Preclinical Insights to the Clinic.Cancers · 2021Review
- Is Vitamin D Deficiency Related to Increased Cancer Risk in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus?International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Vitamin D Receptor Expression and its Clinical Significance in Papillary Thyroid Cancer.Technology in cancer research & treatmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA higher vitamin D intake improves the prognosis of early stage breast cancer (BC) patients. We hypothesized that vitamin D intake should refer to vitamin D receptor (VDR) expression. In order to prove this hypothesis, we first intend to evaluate the correlation between VDR expression and prognosis of BC patients using meta-analysis.
methodsLiteratures from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library (last update by May 20, 2020) were retrieved to find studies assessing the prognostic role of VDR in BC. The hazard ratios (HRs) for patients' survival were extracted for pooled analyses. Subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis and meta-regression were performed to explore the sources of heterogeneity.
resultsSeven articles containing eight studies with 2503 patients were enrolled. The results from the pooled analyses showed that the VDR expression generally had no relationship with BC patients' overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and progression-free survival (PFS) (P > 0.05). Because only the number of studies exploring the relationship between VDR expression and OS is greater than five and there is heterogeneity, we explored the sources of heterogeneity of these studies. Subgroup analyses showed that the VDR expression in the nucleus had no relationship with OS, but high total VDR expression in the nucleus and cytoplasm was related to a better OS (pooled HR = 0.41; 95% CI = 0.18-0.95; P = 0.038). In addition, in subgroup of studies using cut-off values other than 'immunoreactive score (IRS)>5' and 'IRS > 25', high VDR expression was associated with a better OS (pooled HR = 0.47; 95% CI = 0.30-0.74; P = 0.001). Sensitivity analysis showed that the result pattern was not obviously affected by any single study. Meta-regression showed that the source of heterogeneity was not country (P = 0.657), pathological type (P = 0.614), molecular type (P = 0.423), staining location (P = 0.481), or cut-off value (P = 0.509).
conclusionsThe protein expression level of VDR in entire BC cells evaluated by immunohistochemistry is related to the OS of BC patients. It is expected that a more individualized vitamin D intake and a more accurate prognosis assessment can be recommended for BC patients based on the VDR expression. Of course, more preclinical and clinical studies are needed.
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.