Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41274166›Full record

ArticleESMO open2025

Integrative analysis of RNA expression signatures and recurrent genomic alterations before treatment: link to menopausal status, short-term endocrine therapy response and disease-free survival in luminal breast cancer.

G Zhang, H Ni, L Mishieva, S Bartels, M Christgen, H Christgen, L D Kandt, M Raap, R E Kates, O Gluz and 9 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ESMO open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

19 authors.

G ZhangInstitute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry, and Epidemiology, Medical Faculty, Ludwig Maximilians University (LMU), Munich, Germany.
H NiBreast Center, Department OB&GYN and CCC Munich, LMU University Hospital, Munich, Germany.
L MishievaInstitute of Sociology (IfS), Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany; Department of Methodology and Statistics, Faculty of Social & Behavioural Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
S BartelsInstitute of Pathology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
M ChristgenInstitute of Pathology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
H ChristgenInstitute of Pathology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
L D KandtInstitute of Pathology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
M RaapInstitute of Pathology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
R E KatesWest German Study Group (WSG), Moenchengladbach, Germany.
O GluzWest German Study Group (WSG), Moenchengladbach, Germany; Ev. Bethesda Hospital, Breast Center Niederrhein, Moenchengladbach, Germany; University Clinics Cologne, Women's Clinic and Breast Center, Cologne, Germany.
M GraeserWest German Study Group (WSG), Moenchengladbach, Germany; Ev. Bethesda Hospital, Breast Center Niederrhein, Moenchengladbach, Germany; Department of Gynecology, University Medical Center Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
S KümmelWest German Study Group (WSG), Moenchengladbach, Germany; Clinics Essen-Mitte, Breast Unit, Essen, Germany; Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Department of Gynecology with Breast Center, Berlin, Germany.
U NitzWest German Study Group (WSG), Moenchengladbach, Germany; Ev. Bethesda Hospital, Breast Center Niederrhein, Moenchengladbach, Germany.
C PlassDivision of Cancer Epigenomics, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
U MansmannInstitute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry, and Epidemiology, Medical Faculty, Ludwig Maximilians University (LMU), Munich, Germany.
C Zu EulenburgWest German Study Group (WSG), Moenchengladbach, Germany; Department of Biometry and Epidemiology, University Medical Center Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
C GerhäuserDivision of Cancer Epigenomics, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany. Electronic address: c.gerhauser@dkfz.de.
H H KreipeInstitute of Pathology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany; West German Study Group (WSG), Moenchengladbach, Germany.
N HarbeckBreast Center, Department OB&GYN and CCC Munich, LMU University Hospital, Munich, Germany; West German Study Group (WSG), Moenchengladbach, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEndocrine therapy with tamoxifen (TAM) or aromatase inhibitors (AI) is an effective treatment of patients with estrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative luminal breast cancer. However, many patients do not respond to this therapy, leading to disease recurrence. This study aimed to identify baseline clinical, molecular, and genetic features associated with menopause status, primary endocrine therapy resistance and long-term outcomes in luminal breast cancer. PATIENTS AND

methodsWe analyzed 220 patients from the WSG-ADAPT trial with early-stage, estrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, who received 3 weeks of preoperative endocrine therapy with TAM or AI. Tumor samples obtained before treatment were profiled using the NanoString BC360 panel, and samples obtained after treatment were analyzed for recurrent genomic alterations by next-generation panel sequencing. A subset of the TCGA-BRCA cohort was used for external validation. Univariate Cox regression analyses were used for prognosis analysis.

resultsThe NanoString signatures were clustered into three stable blocks: A (reactive microenvironment and stemness), B (immune) and C (proliferation and genomic risk). Non-responders more frequently harbored TP53 mutations, which were linked to significantly elevated protumorigenic immune- (interferon-γ, inflammatory chemokines, macrophages and regulatory T cells) and proliferation-related [breast cancer proliferation, genomic risk, and homologous recombination deficiency (HRD)] signature scores. In the AI group, signatures associated with reduced disease-free survival included breast cancer p53 [hazard ratio (HR) 2.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08-6.94]; genomic risk (HR 2.5, 95% CI 1.07-5.83); HRD (HR 2.44, 95% CI 1.12-5.29) and hypoxia (HR 2.12, 95% CI 1.17-3.87). High expression of programmed cell death protein 1 (HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.21-0.94) and progesterone receptor (HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.07-0.81) indicated better outcomes, respectively. These associations were validated using external data.

conclusionsEndocrine resistance in luminal breast cancer is characterized by elevated immune signatures, increased proliferation, and specific genomic alterations. The integration of clinical information, gene expression patterns, and genetic data enhances patient stratification and potentially informs treatment decisions. These findings support the use of integrative analyses to guide personalized endocrine therapy and improve outcomes.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic Agents, HormonalBreast NeoplasmsMenopauseAdultAgedAromatase InhibitorsDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleGene Expression ProfilingGenomicsHumansMiddle AgedTamoxifenAntineoplastic Agents, HormonalAromatase InhibitorsTamoxifendisease-free survivalendocrine therapy resistancegene expression signaturesgenomic alterationsluminal breast cancermenopausal status

Identifiers

PMID41274166
PMCPMC12681821

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.