ArticleEcancermedicalscience2021
Is oestrogen receptor-negative/progesterone receptor-positive (ER-/PR+) a real pathological entity?
Article in Ecancermedicalscience, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- A prospective cohort study of clinical characteristics and outcomes in Chinese patients with estrogen receptor-negative/progesterone receptor-positive early breast cancer.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2023Article
- Mining TCGA Database for Genes with Prognostic Value in Breast Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Metastases after mastectomy for ductal carcinoma in situ of the male breast; A case report.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2022Article
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe existence of oestrogen receptor-negative (ER-)/progesterone receptor-positive (PR+) breast cancer continues to be an area of controversy amongst oncologists and pathologists.
methodsTo re-evaluate breast cancers originally classified as ER-/PR+ via Oncotype DX® assay and compare molecular phenotype with Recurrence Score® (RS) result, clinicopathologic features and clinical outcomes were retrospectively obtained from electronic health records between January 1998 and June 2005. Archived formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tumour specimens were tested for the expression of ER, PR and human-epidermal-growth-factor-2. The number of positive ER-/PR+ samples confirmed by transcriptional analysis was the primary outcome of interest with event-free and overall survival as secondary outcomes. Biopsies from 26 patients underwent Oncotype DX testing and analysis.
resultsApproximately 60% were middle-aged (40-50 years old) women, and 84.6% had invasive ductal carcinoma. Based on the Oncotype DX assay, approximately 65% (
conclusionOur findings suggest the ER-/PR+ subtype is not a reproducible entity and emphasises the value of retesting this subtype via molecular methods for appropriate treatment selection and patient outcomes. Multigene assay analysis may serve as a second-line or confirming tool for clinical determination of ER/PR phenotype in breast cancer patients for targeted therapies.
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.