Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 624

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 88 of the 88 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Molecular biology in breast cancer: Intrinsic subtypes and signaling pathways

Eroles, Pilar, Bosch, Ana, Alejandro Pérez-Fidalgo, J., Lluch, Ana·2012·Cancer Treatment Reviews
DOI 10.1016/j.ctrv.2011.11.005
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The last decade has brought a breakthrough in the knowledge of the biology of breast cancer. The technological development, and in particular the high throughput technologies, have allowed researchers to inquire more deeply into the nature of the disease through the comparative study of large numbers of samples. The classification of breast cancer by traditional parameters has been joined by rankings based on gene expression. Among the most popular platforms are MammaPrint®, Oncotype DX® the wound-response model, the rate of two genes model, the genomic grade index and the intrinsic subtype model. The latter one provides the amplest biological information and allows for the classification of breast cancer into six intrinsic subtypes: luminal A, luminal B, HER2-enriched, basal-like, normal breast and claudin-low. These new classifications are not yet fully applicable to clinical practice not only because they have not been standardized, but also because they entail a substantial economic outlay. Nevertheless, they have provided valuable information on tumor biology that has led to a better understanding of the signaling pathways governing the processes of formation, maintenance and expansion of the tumors. Researchers now know more about the HER2, estrogen receptor, IGF1R, PI3K/AKT, mTOR, AMPK and angiogenesis pathways which has allowed for the development of new targeted therapeutics now being tested in ongoing clinical trials. In general, one can say that the last decade has changed the way researchers understand, classify and study breast cancer, and it has reshaped the way doctors diagnose and treat this disease. In addition, it has undoubtedly changed the search for alternative therapies by integrating molecular studies and the selection of study populations based on their molecular markers into clinical trials. The present review summarizes the advances that have allowed researchers to both better classify the disease, as well as explore some of the most important signaling pathways.

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.ctrv.2011.11.005

Cites

88 of 88 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

Cited by

See all 624

Metadata

Authors
Eroles, P., Bosch, A., Alejandro Pérez-Fidalgo, J., & Lluch, A.
Venue
Cancer Treatment Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-10
Volume
38
Issue
6
Pages
698-707
ISSN
0305-7372 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.ctrv.2011.11.005
OpenAlex
W2158794266
Cited by
624
References
88
FWCI
9.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

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.