ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022
Clinicopathologic and Genomic Features in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Between Special and No-Special Morphologic Pattern.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Breast Cancer: Epidemiology, Molecular Classification, Diagnostics and Evolving Treatment Paradigms.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Management of triple-negative breast cancer by natural compounds through different mechanistic pathways.Frontiers in genetics · 2024Review
- Next-Generation Sequencing and Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: Insights and Applications.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- XMR: an explainable multimodal neural network for drug response prediction.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2023Article
- Targeted Sequencing of Plasma-Derived vs. Urinary cfDNA from Patients with Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.Cancers · 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
17 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is refractory and heterogeneous, comprising various entities with divergent phenotype, biology, and clinical presentation. As an aggressive subtype, Chinese TNBC patients with special morphologic patterns (STs) were restricted to its incidence of 10-15% in total TNBC population. Methods: We recruited 89 patients with TNBC at Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital (GDPH) from October 2014 to May 2021, comprising 72 cases of invasive ductal carcinoma of no-special type (NSTs) and 17 cases of STs. The clinical data of these patients was collected and statistically analyzed. Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tumor tissues and matched blood samples were collected for targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS) with cancer-related, 520- or 33-gene assay. Immunohistochemical analysis of FFPE tissue sections was performed using anti-programmed cell death-ligand 1(PD-L1) and anti-androgen receptor antibodies. Results: Cases with NSTs presented with higher histologic grade and Ki-67 index rate than ST patients (NSTs to STs: grade I/II/III 1.4%, 16.7%,81.9% vs 0%, 29.4%, 58.8%; p<0.05; Ki-67 ≥30%: 83.3% vs. 58.8%, p<0.05), while androgen receptor (AR) and PD-L1 positive (combined positive score≥10) rates were lower than of STs cases (AR: 11.1% vs. 47.1%; PD-L1: 9.6% vs. 33.3%, p<0.05). The most commonly altered genes were Conclusions: In TNBC patients with STs, decrease in histologic grade and ki-67 index, as well as increase in PD-L1 and AR expression were observed when compared to those with NSTs, suggesting that TNBC patients with STs may better benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors and/or AR inhibitors. Additionally, lower TP53 and higher PIK3CA mutation rates were also found in STs patients, providing genetic evidence for deciphering at least partly potential mechanism of action.
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.