Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37387469›Full record

ArticleCancer medicine2023

Comparisons of clinical characteristics, prognosis, epidemiological factors, and genetic susceptibility between HER2-low and HER2-zero breast cancer among Chinese females.

Lu Zheng, Yunmeng Zhang, Zhipeng Wang, Huan Wang, Chunfang Hao, Chenyang Li, Yanrui Zhao, Zhangyan Lyu, Fangfang Song, Kexin Chen and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lu ZhengDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Tianjin's Key Laboratory of Molecular Cancer Epidemiology, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.
Yunmeng ZhangDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Tianjin's Key Laboratory of Molecular Cancer Epidemiology, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.
Zhipeng WangDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Tianjin's Key Laboratory of Molecular Cancer Epidemiology, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.
Huan WangDepartment of Infectious Disease Control and Prevention, Heping Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of Tianjin, Tianjin, China.
Chunfang HaoDepartment of Breast Cancer, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.
Chenyang LiDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Tianjin's Key Laboratory of Molecular Cancer Epidemiology, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.
Yanrui ZhaoDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Tianjin's Key Laboratory of Molecular Cancer Epidemiology, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.
Zhangyan LyuDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Tianjin's Key Laboratory of Molecular Cancer Epidemiology, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.
Fangfang SongDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Tianjin's Key Laboratory of Molecular Cancer Epidemiology, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.
Kexin ChenDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Tianjin's Key Laboratory of Molecular Cancer Epidemiology, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.
Yubei HuangDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Tianjin's Key Laboratory of Molecular Cancer Epidemiology, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.
Fengju SongDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Tianjin's Key Laboratory of Molecular Cancer Epidemiology, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.ORCID 0000-0003-1542-0828
Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital · CNTianjin Centers for Disease Control and Prevention · CN

Funding

Chinese National Key Research and Development Project 2021YFC2500400National Natural Science Foundation of China 81974439Tianjin Health Committee Foundation TJWJ2021MS008Tianjin Science and Technology Committee Foundation 18JCQNJC80300
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTraditional human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer (BC) is recommended to be divided into HER2-low and HER2-zero subtypes due to different prognosis. However, few studies investigated their differences in clinical characteristics and prognosis among Chinese HER2-negative BC and their stratified differences by hormone receptor (HR), while fewer studies investigated their differences in epidemiological factors and genetic susceptibility.

methodsA total of 11,911 HER2-negative BC were included to compare the clinical characteristics and prognosis between HER2-zero and HER2-low BC, and 4227 of the 11,911 HER2-negative BC were further compared to 5653 controls to investigate subtype-specific epidemiological factors and single nucleotide polymorphisms(SNPs).

resultsOverall, 64.2% of HER2-negative BC were HER2-low BC, and the stratified proportions of HER2-low BC were 61.9% and 75.2% for HR-positive and HR-negative BC, respectively. Compared to HER2-zero BC, HER2-low BC among HR-positive BC showed younger age at diagnosis, later stage, poorer differentiation, and higher Ki-67, while elder age at diagnosis and lower mortality were observed for HER2-low BC among HR-negative BC (all p values <0.05). Compared to healthy controls, both HER2-low and HER2-zero BC are associated with similar epidemiological factors and SNPs. However, stronger interaction between epidemiological factors and polygenic risk scores were observed for HER2-zero BC than HER2-low BC among either HR-positive [odds ratios: 10.71 (7.55-15.17) and 8.84 (6.19-12.62) for the highest risk group compared to the lowest risk group] or HR-negative BC [7.00 (3.14-15.63) and 5.70 (3.26-9.98)].

conclusionsHER2-low BC should deserve more attention than HER2-zero BC, especially in HR-negative BC, due to larger proportion, less clinical heterogeneity, better prognosis, and less susceptibility to risk factors.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorBreast NeoplasmsErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseAdultAgedAsian PeopleCase-Control StudiesChinaFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPolymorphism, Single NucleotidePrognosisBiomarkers, TumorERBB2 protein, humanErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine Kinasesbreast cancerHER2-low BCHER2-zero BCpolygenic risk scoreprognosisSNPs

Identifiers

PMID37387469
PMCPMC10417066
OpenAlexW4382631190

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.