Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 287

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A refined molecular taxonomy of breast cancer

Open access
Guedj, M, Marisa, L, de Reynies, A, Orsetti, B, Schiappa, R, Bibeau, F, MacGrogan, G, Lerebours, F, Finetti, P, Longy, M, Bertheau, P, Bertrand, F, Bonnet, F, Martin, A L, Feugeas, J P, Bièche, I, Lehmann-Che, J, Lidereau, R, Birnbaum, D, Bertucci, F, de Thé, H, Theillet, C·2012·Oncogene

Abstract

The current histoclinical breast cancer classification is simple but imprecise. Several molecular classifications of breast cancers based on expression profiling have been proposed as alternatives. However, their reliability and clinical utility have been repeatedly questioned, notably because most of them were derived from relatively small initial patient populations. We analyzed the transcriptomes of 537 breast tumors using three unsupervised classification methods. A core subset of 355 tumors was assigned to six clusters by all three methods. These six subgroups overlapped with previously defined molecular classes of breast cancer, but also showed important differences, notably the absence of an ERBB2 subgroup and the division of the large luminal ER+ group into four subgroups, two of them being highly proliferative. Of the six subgroups, four were ER+/PR+/AR+, one was ER-/PR-/AR+ and one was triple negative (AR-/ER-/PR-). ERBB2-amplified tumors were split between the ER-/PR-/AR+ subgroup and the highly proliferative ER+ LumC subgroup. Importantly, each of these six molecular subgroups showed specific copy-number alterations. Gene expression changes were correlated to specific signaling pathways. Each of these six subgroups showed very significant differences in tumor grade, metastatic sites, relapse-free survival or response to chemotherapy. All these findings were validated on large external datasets including more than 3000 tumors. Our data thus indicate that these six molecular subgroups represent well-defined clinico-biological entities of breast cancer. Their identification should facilitate the detection of novel prognostic factors or therapeutical targets in breast cancer.

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 · 10.1038/onc.2011.301

Cites

36 of 36 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

1 retracted

Show all 36 references

Cited by

See all 287

Metadata

Authors
Guedj, M., Marisa, L., de Reynies, A., Orsetti, B., Schiappa, R., Bibeau, F., MacGrogan, G., Lerebours, F., Finetti, P., Longy, M., Bertheau, P., Bertrand, F., Bonnet, F., Martin, A. L., Feugeas, J. P., Bièche, I., Lehmann-Che, J., Lidereau, R., Birnbaum, D., Bertucci, F., de Thé, H., & Theillet, C.
Venue
Oncogene
Published
2011-07-25
Volume
31
Issue
9
Pages
1196-1206
ISSN
  • 0950-9232 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-5594
OpenAlex
W2073049760
Cited by
287
References
36
FWCI
8.24
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: A refined molecular taxonomy of breast cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/onc.2011.301
The paper
Guedj, M., Marisa, L., de Reynies, A., Orsetti, B., Schiappa, R., Bibeau, F., MacGrogan, G., Lerebours, F., Finetti, P., Longy, M., Bertheau, P., Bertrand, F., Bonnet, F., Martin, A. L., Feugeas, J. P., Bièche, I., Lehmann-Che, J., Lidereau, R., Birnbaum, D., . . . Theillet, C. (2012). A refined molecular taxonomy of breast cancer. Oncogene. https://doi.org/10.1038/onc.2011.301

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.