Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38523186›Full record

ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2024

Multi-omic profiling of simultaneous ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive breast cancer.

Henry G Kaplan, Alexa K Dowdell, Anna B Berry, Racheli Ben Shimol, Fred L Robinson, Christopher A Carney, Brian D Piening

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Henry G Kaplan *Swedish Cancer Institute, 1221 Madison St., Suite 920, Seattle, WA, 98104, USA. hank.kaplan@swedish.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9866-5200
Alexa K Dowdell *Earle A. Chiles Research Institute, Providence Health, Portland, OR, 97213, USA.
Anna B BerrySwedish Cancer Institute, 1221 Madison St., Suite 920, Seattle, WA, 98104, USA.
Racheli Ben ShimolEarle A. Chiles Research Institute, Providence Health, Portland, OR, 97213, USA.
Fred L RobinsonEarle A. Chiles Research Institute, Providence Health, Portland, OR, 97213, USA.
Christopher A CarneySwedish Cancer Institute, 1221 Madison St., Suite 920, Seattle, WA, 98104, USA.
Brian D PieningEarle A. Chiles Research Institute, Providence Health, Portland, OR, 97213, USA.
Providence Health & Services · USSwedish Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe progression of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) to invasive breast carcinoma (IBC) in humans is highly variable. To better understand the relationship between them, we performed a multi-omic characterization of co-occurring DCIS and IBC lesions in a cohort of individuals.

methodsFormalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue samples from 50 patients with co-occurring DCIS and IBC lesions were subjected to DNA-seq and whole transcriptome RNA-seq. Paired DCIS and IBC multi-omics profiles were then interrogated for DNA mutations, gene expression profiles and pathway analysis.

resultsMost small variants and copy number variations were shared between co-occurring DCIS and IBC lesions, with IBC exhibiting on average a higher degree of additional mutations. However, 36% of co-occurring lesions shared no common mutations and 49% shared no common copy number variations. The most frequent genomic variants in both DCIS and IBC were PIK3CA, TP53, KMT2C, MAP3K1, GATA3 and SF3B1, with KMT2C being more frequent in DCIS and TP53 and MAP3K1 more frequent in IBC, though the numbers are too small for definitive conclusions. The most frequent copy number variations were seen in MCL1, CKSB1 and ERBB2. ERBB2 changes were not seen in IBC unless present in the corresponding DCIS. Transcriptional profiles were highly distinct between DCIS and IBC, with DCIS exhibiting upregulation of immune-related signatures, while IBC showed significant overexpression in genes and pathways associated with cell division and proliferation. Interestingly, DCIS and IBC exhibited significant differential expression of different components of extracellular matrix (ECM) formation and regulation, with DCIS showing overexpression of ECM-membrane interaction components while IBC showed upregulation of genes associated with fibronectin and invadopodia.

conclusionWhile most co-occurring DCIS and IBC were mutationally similar and suggestive of a common clonal progenitor, transcriptionally the lesions are highly distinct, with IBC expressing key pathways that facilitate invasion and proliferation. These results are suggestive of additional levels of regulation, epigenetic or other, that facilitate the acquisition of invasive properties during tumor evolution.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Intraductal, NoninfiltratingDNA Copy Number VariationsMutationAdultAgedBiomarkers, TumorCarcinoma, Ductal, BreastFemaleGene Expression ProfilingGene Expression Regulation, NeoplasticGenomicsHumansMiddle AgedMultiomicsNeoplasm InvasivenessBiomarkers, TumorBreast cancerDCISGenomicsRNA-seq

Identifiers

PMID38523186
PMCPMC11101558
OpenAlexW4393126544

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.