Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35362092›Full record

ReviewThe Journal of pathology2022

Field cancerization in breast cancer.

Emanuela Gadaleta, Graeme J Thorn, Helen Ross-Adams, Louise J Jones, Claude Chelala

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Journal of pathology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed
8.6field-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

49 citing papers in PubMed, 81 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Hypoxia-induced mechanism of TNBC promoting tumour cell proliferation through exosomal miRNA.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. [Erianin inhibits proliferation and migration of breast cancer cellsNan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Emanuela GadaletaCentre for Cancer Biomarkers and Biotherapeutics, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5740-6293
Graeme J ThornCentre for Cancer Biomarkers and Biotherapeutics, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7704-5360
Helen Ross-AdamsCentre for Cancer Biomarkers and Biotherapeutics, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1338-742X
Louise J JonesCentre for Tumour Biology, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Claude ChelalaCentre for Cancer Biomarkers and Biotherapeutics, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2488-0669
Queen Mary University of London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Breast cancer affects one in seven women worldwide during their lifetime. Widespread mammographic screening programs and education campaigns allow for early detection of the disease, often during its asymptomatic phase. Current practice in treatment and recurrence monitoring is based primarily on pathological evaluations but can also encompass genomic evaluations, both of which focus on the primary tumor. Although breast cancer is one of the most studied cancers, patients still recur at a rate of up to 15% within the first 10 years post-surgery. Local recurrence was originally attributed to tumor cells contaminating histologically normal (HN) tissues beyond the surgical margin, but advances in technology have allowed for the identification of distinct aberrations that exist in the peri-tumoral tissues themselves. One leading theory to explain this phenomenon is the field cancerization theory. Under this hypothesis, tumors arise from a field of molecularly altered cells that create a permissive environment for malignant evolution, which can occur with or without morphological changes. The traditional histopathology paradigm dictates that molecular alterations are reflected in the tissue phenotype. However, the spectrum of inter-patient variability of normal breast tissue may obfuscate recognition of a cancerized field during routine diagnostics. In this review, we explore the concept of field cancerization focusing on HN peri-tumoral tissues: we present the pathological and molecular features of field cancerization within these tissues and discuss how the use of peri-tumoral tissues can affect research. Our observations suggest that pathological and molecular evaluations could be used synergistically to assess risk and guide the therapeutic management of patients. © 2022 The Authors. The Journal of Pathology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsBreastEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansUnited Kingdombreast cancercancer-adjacent tissuesfield cancerizationhistologically normal

Identifiers

PMID35362092
PMCPMC9322418
OpenAlexW4221055046

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.