ArticleJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology1995
Prognostic value of proliferating cell nuclear antigen and c-erbB-2 compared with conventional histopathological factors in breast cancer.
Article in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 1995. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Two estrogen response element sequences near the PCNA gene are not responsible for its estrogen-enhanced expression in MCF7 cells.PloS one · 2008Article
- Immunochemical analysis of protein expression in breast epithelial cells transformed by estrogens and high linear energy transfer (LET) radiation.Histochemistry and cell biology · 2005Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Expression of proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA) and c-erbB-2 oncoprotein has been assessed in 471 women with breast cancer to evaluate their prognostic value as compared to conventional histopathological factors. In univariate analysis, high PCNA expression (> or = 20%) predicted a significantly worse survival in lymph-node-negative tumors (univariate P = 0.031). However, the effect disappeared in multivariate analysis and the histological grade remained the only independent factor for this group. Despite its close correlation to histological grade (P < 0.001), PCNA expression discriminated subsets with different survival within the heterogeneous group of moderately differentiated tumors (univariate P = 0.073, multivariate P = 0.075). PCNA expression was not found to be a significant prognostic factor in lymph-node-positive tumors, thus it was of limited value for breast cancer patients as a whole. c-erbB-2 protein overexpression was associated with a worse survival (univariate P = 0.019, multivariate P = 0.057) for the entire group of patients. The effect was mainly attributed to the significance of c-erbB-2 as an independent factor in lymph-node-positive (up to three nodes, multivariate P = 0.04; four or more nodes: multivariate P = 0.017) and large tumors (> 2 cm: multivariate P = 0.002). c-erbB-2 was without significance in lymph-node-negative patients. Though both factors might amplify the prognostic information for distinct patient subsets they do not achieve the strong prognostic value of conventional histopathological features in breast cancer.
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.