Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 283

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of Breast Cancer Molecular Features and Survival by African and European Ancestry in The Cancer Genome Atlas

Open access
Huo, Dezheng, Hu, Hai, Rhie, Suhn K., Gamazon, Eric R., Cherniack, Andrew D., Liu, Jianfang, Yoshimatsu, Toshio F., Pitt, Jason J., Hoadley, Katherine A., Troester, Melissa, Ru, Yuanbin, Lichtenberg, Tara, Sturtz, Lori A., Shelley, Carl S., Benz, Christopher C., Mills, Gordon B., Laird, Peter W., Shriver, Craig D., Perou, Charles M., Olopade, Olufunmilayo I.·2017·JAMA Oncology

Abstract

Importance: African Americans have the highest breast cancer mortality rate. Although racial difference in the distribution of intrinsic subtypes of breast cancer is known, it is unclear if there are other inherent genomic differences that contribute to the survival disparities. Objectives: To investigate racial differences in breast cancer molecular features and survival and to estimate the heritability of breast cancer subtypes. Design, Setting, and Participants: Among a convenience cohort of patients with invasive breast cancer, breast tumor and matched normal tissue sample data (as of September 18, 2015) were obtained from The Cancer Genome Atlas. Main Outcomes and Measures: Breast cancer–free interval, tumor molecular features, and genetic variants. Results: Participants were 930 patients with breast cancer, including 154 black patients of African ancestry (mean [SD] age at diagnosis, 55.66 [13.01] years; 98.1% [n = 151] female) and 776 white patients of European ancestry (mean [SD] age at diagnosis, 59.51 [13.11] years; 99.0% [n = 768] female). Compared with white patients, black patients had a worse breast cancer-free interval (hazard ratio, HR=1.67; 95% CI, 1.02-2.74; P = .043). They had a higher likelihood of basal-like (odds ratio, 3.80; 95% CI, 2.46-5.87; P < .001) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (ERBB2 [formerly HER2])–enriched (odds ratio, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.10-4.47; P = .027) breast cancer subtypes, with the Luminal A subtype as the reference. Blacks had more TP53 mutations and fewer PIK3CA mutations than whites. While most molecular differences were eliminated after adjusting for intrinsic subtype, the study found 16 DNA methylation probes, 4 DNA copy number segments, 1 protein, and 142 genes that were differentially expressed, with the gene-based signature having an excellent capacity for distinguishing breast tumors from black vs white patients (cross-validation C index, 0.878). Using germline genotypes, the heritability of breast cancer subtypes (basal vs nonbasal) was estimated to be 0.436 (P = 1.5 × 10−14). The estrogen receptor–positive polygenic risk score built from 89 known susceptibility variants was higher in blacks than in whites (difference, 0.24; P = 2.3 × 10−5), while the estrogen receptor–negative polygenic risk score was much higher in blacks than in whites (difference, 0.48; P = 2.8 × 10−11). Conclusions and Relevance: On the molecular level, after adjusting for intrinsic subtype frequency differences, this study found a modest number of genomic differences but a significant clinical survival outcome difference between blacks and whites in The Cancer Genome Atlas data set. Moreover, more than 40% of breast cancer subtype frequency differences could be explained by genetic variants. These data could form the basis for the development of molecular targeted therapies to improve clinical outcomes for the specific subtypes of breast cancers that disproportionately affect black women. Findings also indicate that personalized risk assessment and optimal treatment could reduce deaths from aggressive breast cancers for black women.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.0595

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 283

Metadata

Authors
Huo, D., Hu, H., Rhie, S. K., Gamazon, E. R., Cherniack, A. D., Liu, J., Yoshimatsu, T. F., Pitt, J. J., Hoadley, K. A., Troester, M., Ru, Y., Lichtenberg, T., Sturtz, L. A., Shelley, C. S., Benz, C. C., Mills, G. B., Laird, P. W., Shriver, C. D., Perou, C. M., & Olopade, O. I.
Venue
JAMA Oncology
Published
2017-12-01
Volume
3
Issue
12
Pages
1654
ISSN
2374-2437 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2611684441
Cited by
283
References
3
FWCI
8.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of Breast Cancer Molecular Features and Survival by African and European Ancestry in The Cancer Genome Atlas. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.0595
The paper
Huo, D., Hu, H., Rhie, S. K., Gamazon, E. R., Cherniack, A. D., Liu, J., Yoshimatsu, T. F., Pitt, J. J., Hoadley, K. A., Troester, M., Ru, Y., Lichtenberg, T., Sturtz, L. A., Shelley, C. S., Benz, C. C., Mills, G. B., Laird, P. W., Shriver, C. D., Perou, C. M., & Olopade, O. I. (2017). Comparison of Breast Cancer Molecular Features and Survival by African and European Ancestry in The Cancer Genome Atlas. JAMA Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.0595

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.