Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34408238›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Survival analysis in breast cancer using proteomic data from four independent datasets.

Ágnes Ősz, András Lánczky, Balázs Győrffy

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed
8.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 80 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Tumor-intrinsic CDC42BPB confers resistance to anti-PD-1 immune checkpoint blockade in breast cancer.Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ágnes ŐszDepartment of Bioinformatics, Semmelweis University, Tűzoltó u. 7-9, 1094, Budapest, Hungary.
András LánczkyDepartment of Bioinformatics, Semmelweis University, Tűzoltó u. 7-9, 1094, Budapest, Hungary.
Balázs GyőrffyDepartment of Bioinformatics, Semmelweis University, Tűzoltó u. 7-9, 1094, Budapest, Hungary. gyorffy.balazs@med.semmelweis-univ.hu.
Semmelweis University · HU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Breast cancer clinical treatment selection is based on the immunohistochemical determination of four protein biomarkers: ESR1, PGR, HER2, and MKI67. Our aim was to correlate immunohistochemical results to proteome-level technologies in measuring the expression of these markers. We also aimed to integrate available proteome-level breast cancer datasets to identify and validate new prognostic biomarker candidates. We searched studies involving breast cancer patient cohorts with published survival and proteomic information. Immunohistochemistry and proteomic technologies were compared using the Mann-Whitney test. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves were generated to validate discriminative power. Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis were calculated to assess prognostic power. False Discovery Rate was computed to correct for multiple hypothesis testing. We established a database integrating protein expression data and survival information from four independent cohorts for 1229 breast cancer patients. In all four studies combined, a total of 7342 unique proteins were identified, and 1417 of these were identified in at least three datasets. ESR1, PGR, and HER2 protein expression levels determined by RPPA or LC-MS/MS methods showed a significant correlation with the levels determined by immunohistochemistry (p < 0.0001). PGR and ESR1 levels showed a moderate correlation (correlation coefficient = 0.17, p = 0.0399). An additional panel of candidate proteins, including apoptosis-related proteins (BCL2,), adhesion markers (CDH1, CLDN3, CLDN7) and basal markers (cytokeratins), were validated as prognostic biomarkers. Finally, we expanded our previously established web tool designed to validate survival-associated biomarkers by including the proteomic datasets analyzed in this study ( https://kmplot.com/ ). In summary, large proteomic studies now provide sufficient data enabling the validation and ranking of potential protein biomarkers.

Indexed as

PrognosisProteomicsAgedBiomarkers, TumorBreast NeoplasmsChromatography, LiquidDatabases, GeneticDisease-Free SurvivalErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesEstrogen Receptor alphaFemaleHumansKi-67 AntigenMiddle AgedReceptors, ProgesteroneTandem Mass SpectrometryBiomarkers, TumorErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesEstrogen Receptor alphaKi-67 AntigenReceptors, Progesterone

Identifiers

PMID34408238
PMCPMC8373859
OpenAlexW3194071783

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.