ArticleBreast cancer research : BCR2024
Clinically relevant gene signatures provide independent prognostic information in older breast cancer patients.
Article in Breast cancer research : BCR, 2024. 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.
- A Parsimonious Ultrasound Radiomics and Ki-67 Model for Estimating MammaPrint Risk Categorization in HR+/HER2- Early Breast Cancer.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Article
- Breast cancer-specific survival by molecular subtype in different age groups of women in Scotland.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2025Article
- Gene signatures for cancer research: A 25-year retrospective and future avenues.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe clinical utility of gene signatures in older breast cancer patients remains unclear. We aimed to determine signature prognostic capacity in this patient subgroup.
methodsResearch versions of the genomic grade index (GGI), 70-gene, recurrence score (RS), cell cycle score (CCS), PAM50 risk-of-recurrence proliferation (ROR-P), and PAM50 signatures were applied to 39 breast cancer datasets (N = 9583). After filtering on age ≥ 70 years, and the presence of estrogen receptor (ER) and survival data, 871 patients remained. Signature prognostic capacity was tested in all (n = 871), ER-positive/lymph node-positive (ER + /LN + , n = 335) and ER-positive/lymph node-negative (ER + /LN-, n = 374) patients using Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox-proportional hazard (PH) modelling.
resultsAll signatures were statistically significant in Kaplan-Meier analysis of all patients (Log-rank P < 0.001). This significance remained in multivariable analysis (Cox-PH, P ≤ 0.05). In ER + /LN + patients all signatures except PAM50 were significant in Kaplan-Meier analysis (Log-rank P ≤ 0.05) and remained so in multivariable analysis (Cox-PH, P ≤ 0.05). In ER + /LN- patients all except RS were significant in Kaplan-Meier analysis (Log-rank P ≤ 0.05) but only the 70-gene, CCS, ROR-P, and PAM50 signatures remained so in multivariable analysis (Cox-PH, P ≤ 0.05).
conclusionsWe found that gene signatures provide prognostic information in survival analyses of all, ER + /LN + and ER + /LN- older (≥ 70 years) breast cancer patients, suggesting a potential role in aiding treatment decisions in older patients.
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.