ArticleCancers2024
Visual Intratumor Heterogeneity and Breast Tumor Progression.
Article in Cancers, 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.
- Prediction of Ki-67 expression in invasive breast cancer with dual-modality radiomics.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Exosomal non-coding RNAs: orchestrators of intercellular crosstalk in the prostate cancer tumor microenvironment.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- Image analysis-based identification of high risk ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancers.Breast cancer research : BCR · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
High intratumoral heterogeneity is thought to be a poor prognostic indicator. However, the source of heterogeneity may also be important, as genomic heterogeneity is not always reflected in histologic or 'visual' heterogeneity. We aimed to develop a predictor of histologic heterogeneity and evaluate its association with outcomes and molecular heterogeneity. We used VGG16 to train an image classifier to identify unique, patient-specific visual features in 1655 breast tumors (5907 core images) from the Carolina Breast Cancer Study (CBCS). Extracted features for images, as well as the epithelial and stromal image components, were hierarchically clustered, and visual heterogeneity was defined as a greater distance between images from the same patient. We assessed the association between visual heterogeneity, clinical features, and DNA-based molecular heterogeneity using generalized linear models, and we used Cox models to estimate the association between visual heterogeneity and tumor recurrence. Basal-like and ER-negative tumors were more likely to have low visual heterogeneity, as were the tumors from younger and Black women. Less heterogeneous tumors had a higher risk of recurrence (hazard ratio = 1.62, 95% confidence interval = 1.22-2.16), and were more likely to come from patients whose tumors were comprised of only one subclone or had a TP53 mutation. Associations were similar regardless of whether the image was based on stroma, epithelium, or both. Histologic heterogeneity adds complementary information to commonly used molecular indicators, with low heterogeneity predicting worse outcomes. Future work integrating multiple sources of heterogeneity may provide a more comprehensive understanding of tumor progression.
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.