Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36284362›Full record

ArticleBreast cancer research : BCR2022

Matrix Gla protein (MGP), GATA3, and TRPS1: a novel diagnostic panel to determine breast origin.

Tian Du, Lu Pan, Chengyou Zheng, Keming Chen, Yuanzhong Yang, Jiewei Chen, Xue Chao, Mei Li, Jiabin Lu, Rongzhen Luo and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Breast cancer research : BCR, 2022. 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
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Multidimensional roles and clinical significance of GATA3 in breast cancer.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. TRPS1 expression in breast angiosarcoma.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2025
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
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

15 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Tian Du *State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China.
Lu Pan *State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China.
Chengyou Zheng *State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China.
Keming ChenState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China.
Yuanzhong YangState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China.
Jiewei ChenState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China.
Xue ChaoState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China.
Mei LiState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China.
Jiabin LuState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China.
Rongzhen LuoState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China.
Jinhui ZhangState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China.
Yu WuState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China.
Jiehua HeState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China. hejh@sysucc.org.cn.
Dongping JiangState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China. jiangdp@sysucc.org.cn.
Peng SunState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China. sunpeng1@sysucc.org.cn.
Sun Yat-sen University · CNState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South ChinaSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMetastatic breast carcinoma is commonly considered during differential diagnosis when metastatic disease is detected in females. In addition to the tumor morphology and documented clinical history, sensitive and specific immunohistochemical (IHC) markers such as GCDFP-15, mammaglobin, and GATA3 are helpful for determining breast origin. However, these markers are reported to show lower sensitivity in certain subtypes, such as triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). MATERIALS AND

methodsUsing bioinformatics analyses, we identified a potential diagnostic panel to determine breast origin: matrix Gla protein (MGP), transcriptional repressor GATA binding 1 (TRPS1), and GATA-binding protein 3 (GATA3). We compared MGP, TRPS1, and GATA3 expression in different subtypes of breast carcinoma of (n = 1201) using IHC. As a newly identified marker, MGP expression was also evaluated in solid tumors (n = 2384) and normal tissues (n = 1351) from different organs.

resultsMGP and TRPS1 had comparable positive expression in HER2-positive (91.2% vs. 92.0%, p = 0.79) and TNBC subtypes (87.3% vs. 91.2%, p = 0.18). GATA3 expression was lower than MGP (p < 0.001) or TRPS1 (p < 0.001), especially in HER2-positive (77.0%, p < 0.001) and TNBC (43.3%, p < 0.001) subtypes. TRPS1 had the highest positivity rate (97.9%) in metaplastic TNBCs, followed by MGP (88.6%), while only 47.1% of metaplastic TNBCs were positive for GATA3. When using MGP, GATA3, and TRPS1 as a novel IHC panel, 93.0% of breast carcinomas were positive for at least two markers, and only 9 cases were negative for all three markers. MGP was detected in 36 cases (3.0%) that were negative for both GATA3 and TRPS1. MGP showed mild-to-moderate positive expression in normal hepatocytes, renal tubules, as well as 31.1% (99/318) of hepatocellular carcinomas. Rare cases (0.6-5%) had focal MGP expression in renal, ovarian, lung, urothelial, and cholangiocarcinomas.

conclusionsOur findings suggest that MGP is a newly identified sensitive IHC marker to support breast origin. MGP, TRPS1, and GATA3 could be applied as a reliable diagnostic panel to determine breast origin in clinical practice.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsTriple Negative Breast NeoplasmsBiomarkers, TumorCalcium-Binding ProteinsFemaleFingersGATA3 Transcription FactorHair DiseasesHumansLanger-Giedion SyndromeMammaglobin AMatrix Gla ProteinNoseRepressor ProteinsBiomarkers, TumorCalcium-Binding ProteinsGATA3 protein, humanGATA3 Transcription FactorMammaglobin AMatrix Gla ProteinRepressor ProteinsTRPS1 protein, humanBreast carcinomaGATA3ImmunohistochemicalMGPTRPS1

Identifiers

PMID36284362
PMCPMC9598034
OpenAlexW4307583452

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.