Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34387660›Full record

ArticleBioscience reports2021

Molecular subtyping of breast cancer intrinsic taxonomy with oligonucleotide microarray and NanoString nCounter.

Yen-Jen Chen, Ching-Shui Huang, Nam-Nhut Phan, Tzu-Pin Lu, Chih-Yi Liu, Chi-Jung Huang, Jen-Hwey Chiu, Ling-Ming Tseng, Chi-Cheng Huang

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Bioscience reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. RNA-seq-based elucidation of lactylation in breast cancer.Archives of medical science : AMS · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Cuproptosis engages in c-Myc-mediated breast cancer stemness.Journal of translational medicine · 2023
    Article
  12. 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

9 authors.

Yen-Jen Chen *Comprehensive Breast Health Center, Department of Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Ching-Shui Huang *Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Cathay General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Nam-Nhut PhanBioinformatics Program, Taiwan International Graduate Program, Institute of Information Science, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan.
Tzu-Pin LuInstitute of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Chih-Yi LiuDepartment of Pathology, Cathay General Hospital SiJhih, New Taipei, Taiwan.
Chi-Jung HuangDepartment of Medical Research, Cathay General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Jen-Hwey ChiuInstitute of Traditional Medicine, School of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Ling-Ming TsengComprehensive Breast Health Center, Department of Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Chi-Cheng HuangComprehensive Breast Health Center, Department of Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0003-4378-4776

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Breast cancer intrinsic subtypes have been identified based on the transcription of a predefined gene expression (GE) profiles and algorithm (prediction analysis of microarray 50 gene set, PAM50). The present study compared molecular subtyping with oligonucleotide microarray and NanoString nCounter assay. A total of 109 Taiwanese breast cancers (24 with adjacent normal breast tissues) were assayed with Affymetrix Human Genome U133 plus 2.0 microarrays and 144 were assayed with the NanoString nCounter while 64 patients were assayed for both platforms. Subtyping with the nearest centroid (single sample prediction (SSP)) was performed, and 16 out of 24 (67%) matched normal breasts were categorized as the normal breast-like subtype. For 64 breast cancers assayed for both platforms, 41 (65%, one unclassified by microarray) were predicted with an identical subtype, resulting in a fair κ statistic of 0.60. Taking nCounter subtyping as the gold standard, prediction accuracy was 43% (3/7), 81% (13/16), 25% (5/20), and 100% (20/20) for basal-like, human epidermal growth factor receptor II (HER2)-enriched, luminal A and luminal B subtypes predicted from microarray GE profiles. Microarray identified more luminal B cases from luminal A subtype predicted by nCounter. It is not uncommon to use microarray for breast cancer molecular subtyping for research. Our study showed that fundamental discrepancy existed between distinct GE assays, and cross-platform equivalence should be carefully appraised when molecular subtyping was conducted with oligonucleotide microarray.

Indexed as

Gene Expression ProfilingNanotechnologyOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisTranscriptomeAlgorithmsBiomarkers, TumorBreast NeoplasmsFemaleGene Expression Regulation, NeoplasticHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansTaiwanBiomarkers, Tumorbreast cancerintrinsic subtypemolecular subtypingNanoString nCounteroligonucleotide microarrayPAM50

Identifiers

PMID34387660
PMCPMC8385191

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.