Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,319

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

Clinical implications of the intrinsic molecular subtypes of breast cancer

Open access
Prat, Aleix, Pineda, Estela, Adamo, Barbara, Galván, Patricia, Fernández, Aranzazu, Gaba, Lydia, Díez, Marc, Viladot, Margarita, Arance, Ana, Muñoz, Montserrat·2015·The Breast

Abstract

Gene-expression profiling has had a considerable impact on our understanding of breast cancer biology. During the last 15 years, 5 intrinsic molecular subtypes of breast cancer (Luminal A, Luminal B, HER2-enriched, Basal-like and Claudin-low) have been identified and intensively studied. In this review, we will focus on the current and future clinical implications of the intrinsic molecular subtypes beyond the current pathological-based classification endorsed by the 2013 St. Gallen Consensus Recommendations. Within hormone receptor-positive and HER2-negative early breast cancer, the Luminal A and B subtypes predict 10-year outcome regardless of systemic treatment administered as well as residual risk of distant recurrence after 5 years of endocrine therapy. Within clinically HER2-positive disease, the 4 main intrinsic subtypes can be identified and dominate the biological and clinical phenotype. From a clinical perspective, patients with HER2+/HER2-enriched disease seem to benefit the most from neoadjuvant trastuzumab, or dual HER2 blockade with trastuzumab/lapatinib, in combination with chemotherapy, and patients with HER2+/Luminal A disease seem to have a relative better outcome compared to the other subtypes. Finally, within triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), the Basal-like disease predominates (70-80%) and, from a biological perspective, should be considered a cancer-type by itself. Importantly, the distinction between Basal-like versus non-Basal-like within TNBC might predict survival following (neo)adjvuvant multi-agent chemotherapy, bevacizumab benefit in the neoadjuvant setting (CALGB40603), and docetaxel vs. carboplatin benefit in first-line metastatic disease (TNT study). Overall, this data suggests that intrinsic molecular profiling provides clinically relevant information beyond current pathology-based classifications.

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 · 10.1016/j.breast.2015.07.008

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 1,319

Metadata

Authors
Prat, A., Pineda, E., Adamo, B., Galván, P., Fernández, A., Gaba, L., Díez, M., Viladot, M., Arance, A., & Muñoz, M.
Venue
The Breast
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-11
Volume
24
Pages
S26-S35
ISSN
0960-9776 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2141414987
Cited by
1,319
References
3
FWCI
16.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Clinical implications of the intrinsic molecular subtypes of breast cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.breast.2015.07.008
The paper
Prat, A., Pineda, E., Adamo, B., Galván, P., Fernández, A., Gaba, L., Díez, M., Viladot, M., Arance, A., & Muñoz, M. (2015). Clinical implications of the intrinsic molecular subtypes of breast cancer. The Breast. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2015.07.008

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.