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

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Prognostic significance of RNA-based TP53 pathway function among estrogen receptor positive and negative breast cancer cases

Hurson, Amber N., Abubakar, Mustapha, Hamilton, Alina M., Conway, Kathleen, Hoadley, Katherine A., Love, Michael I., Olshan, Andrew F., Perou, Charles M., Garcia-Closas, Montserrat, Troester, Melissa A.·2022·npj Breast Cancer
DOI 10.1038/s41523-022-00437-7
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

TP53 and estrogen receptor (ER) are essential in breast cancer development and progression, but TP53 status (by DNA sequencing or protein expression) has been inconsistently associated with survival. We evaluated whether RNA-based TP53 classifiers are related to survival. Participants included 3213 women in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study (CBCS) with invasive breast cancer (stages I–III). Tumors were classified for TP53 status (mutant-like/wildtype-like) using an RNA signature. We used Cox proportional hazards models to estimate covariate-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) among ER- and TP53-defined subtypes. RNA-based results were compared to DNA- and IHC-based TP53 classification, as well as Basal-like versus non-Basal-like subtype. Findings from the diverse (50% Black), population-based CBCS were compared to those from the largely white METABRIC study. RNA-based TP53 mutant-like was associated with BCSS among both ER-negatives and ER-positives (HR (95% CI) = 5.38 (1.84–15.78) and 4.66 (1.79–12.15), respectively). Associations were attenuated when using DNA- or IHC-based TP53 classification. In METABRIC, few ER-negative tumors were TP53-wildtype-like, but TP53 status was a strong predictor of BCSS among ER-positives. In both populations, the effect of TP53 mutant-like status was similar to that for Basal-like subtype. RNA-based measures of TP53 status are strongly associated with BCSS and may have value among ER-negative cancers where few prognostic markers have been robustly validated. Given the role of TP53 in chemotherapeutic response, RNA-based TP53 as a prognostic biomarker could address an unmet need 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/s41523-022-00437-7

Cites

1 of 1 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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 44

  1. Pharoah, P. D., Day, N. E. & Caldas, C. Somatic mutations in the p53 gene and prognosis in breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Br. J. Cancer 80, 1968–1973 (1999). · DOI · Paper page
  2. Dobes, P. et al. Influence of mutation type on prognostic and predictive values of TP53 status in primary breast cancer patients. Oncol. Rep. 32, 1695–1702 (2014). · DOI
  3. Meric-Bernstam, F. et al. Survival outcomes by TP53 mutation status in metastatic breast cancer. JCO Precis. Oncol. 2018 (2018). · DOI
  4. Song, H. S., Do, Y. R., Kang, S. H., Jeong, K. Y. & Kim, Y. S. Prognostic significance of immunohistochemical expression of p53 gene product in operable breast cancer. Cancer Res. Treat. 38, 218–223 (2006). · DOI
  5. Powell, B., Soong, R., Iacopetta, B., Seshadri, R. & Smith, D. R. Prognostic significance of mutations to different structural and functional regions of the p53 gene in breast cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 6, 443–451 (2000).
  6. Blaszyk, H. et al. A prospective trial of midwest breast cancer patients: a p53 gene mutation is the most important predictor of adverse outcome. Int. J. Cancer 89, 32–38 (2000). · doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0215(20000120)89:1<32::aid-ijc6>3.0.co;2-g
  7. Silwal-Pandit, L. et al. TP53 mutation spectrum in breast cancer is subtype specific and has distinct prognostic relevance. Clin. Cancer Res. 20, 3569–3580 (2014). · DOI · Paper page
  8. Lee, S. K. et al. Distinguishing low-risk luminal A breast cancer subtypes with Ki-67 and p53 is more predictive of long-term survival. PloS One 10, e0124658 (2015). · DOI
  9. Coates, A. S. et al. Prognostic interaction between expression of p53 and estrogen receptor in patients with node-negative breast cancer: results from IBCSG Trials VIII and IX. Breast Cancer Res. 14, R143 (2012). · DOI
  10. Berger, C., Qian, Y. & Chen, X. The p53-estrogen receptor loop in cancer. Curr. Mol. Med. 13, 1229–1240 (2013). · DOI
  11. Liu, G., Schwartz, J. A. & Brooks, S. C. Estrogen receptor protects p53 from deactivation by human double minute-2. Cancer Res. 60, 1810–1814 (2000).
  12. Liu, W. et al. Estrogen receptor-alpha binds p53 tumor suppressor protein directly and represses its function. J. Biol. Chem. 281, 9837–9840 (2006). · DOI · Paper page
  13. Yu, C. L. et al. The tumor suppressor p53 is a negative regulator of estrogen receptor signaling pathways. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 239, 617–620 (1997). · doi:10.1006/bbrc.1997.7522
  14. Huo, D. et al. Comparison of breast cancer molecular features and survival by African and European ancestry in The Cancer Genome Atlas. JAMA Oncol. 3, 1654–1662 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  15. Comprehensive molecular portraits of human breast tumourso. Nature. 2012;490:61–70. · DOI · Paper page
  16. Williams, L. A. et al. TP53 protein levels, RNA-based pathway assessment, and race among invasive breast cancer cases. NPJ Breast Cancer 4, 13 (2018). · DOI
  17. Lin, C. H. et al. TP53 mutational analysis enhances the prognostic accuracy of IHC4 and PAM50 assays. Sci. Rep. 5, 17879 (2015). · DOI
  18. Hartmann, A., Blaszyk, H., Kovach, J. S. & Sommer, S. S. The molecular epidemiology of p53 gene mutations in human breast cancer. Trends Genet. 13, 27–33 (1997). · DOI
  19. Feeley, L. P., Mulligan, A. M., Pinnaduwage, D., Bull, S. B. & Andrulis, I. L. Distinguishing luminal breast cancer subtypes by Ki67, progesterone receptor or TP53 status provides prognostic information. Mod. Pathol. 27, 554–561 (2014). · doi:10.1038/modpathol.2013.153
  20. Caleffi, M. et al. p53 gene mutations and steroid receptor status in breast cancer. Clinicopathologic correlations and prognostic assessment. Cancer 73, 2147–2156 (1994). · DOI
  21. Bertheau, P. et al. TP53 status and response to chemotherapy in breast cancer. Pathobiology75, 132–139 (2008). · DOI
  22. Bertheau, P. et al. p53 in breast cancer subtypes and new insights into response to chemotherapy. Breast 22, S27–S29 (2013). · DOI · Paper page
  23. Telli, M. L. et al. Homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) status predicts response to standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with triple-negative or BRCA1/2 mutation-associated breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 168, 625–630 (2018). · DOI
  24. Takamatsu, S. et al. Utility of homologous recombination deficiency biomarkers across cancer types. JCO Precis. Oncol. 2021;5. · DOI
  25. Newman, B. et al. The Carolina Breast Cancer Study: integrating population-based epidemiology and molecular biology. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 35, 51–60 (1995). · DOI · Paper page
  26. Allott, E. H. et al. Performance of three-biomarker immunohistochemistry for intrinsic breast cancer subtyping in the AMBER Consortium. Cancer Epidemiol., Biomark. Prev. 25, 470–478 (2016). · DOI
  27. Carey, L. A. et al. Race, breast cancer subtypes, and survival in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study. JAMA 295, 2492–2502 (2006). · DOI · Paper page
  28. Furberg, H. et al. Environmental factors in relation to breast cancer characterized by p53 protein expression. Cancer Epidemiol., Biomark. Prev. 11, 829–835 (2002).
  29. Troester, M. A. et al. Racial differences in PAM50 subtypes in the Carolina breast cancer study. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 110, 176–182 (2018). · DOI
  30. Bhattacharya, A. et al. An approach for normalization and quality control for NanoString RNA expression data. Brief Bioinform. 22 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  31. Troester, M. A. et al. Gene expression patterns associated with p53 status in breast cancer. BMC Cancer 6, 276 (2006). · DOI · Paper page
  32. Parker, J. S. et al. Supervised risk predictor of breast cancer based on intrinsic subtypes. J. Clin. Oncol. 27, 1160–1167 (2009). · DOI · Paper page
  33. Conway, K. et al. Prevalence and spectrum of p53 mutations associated with smoking in breast cancer. Cancer Res. 62, 1987–1995 (2002).
  34. Baker, L. et al. p53 mutation, deprivation and poor prognosis in primary breast cancer. Br. J. Cancer 102, 719–726 (2010). · DOI
  35. Curtis, C. et al. The genomic and transcriptomic architecture of 2000 breast tumours reveals novel subgroups. Nature 486, 346–352 (2012). · DOI · Paper page
  36. Ali, A. M. et al. Comparison of methods for handling missing data on immunohistochemical markers in survival analysis of breast cancer. Br. J. Cancer 104, 693–699 (2011). · DOI
  37. Rossner, P.Jr. et al. Mutations in p53, p53 protein overexpression and breast cancer survival. J. Cell. Mol. Med. 13, 3847–3857 (2009). · DOI
  38. Yamashita, H. et al. p53 protein accumulation predicts resistance to endocrine therapy and decreased post-relapse survival in metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 8, R48 (2006). · DOI
  39. Iwaya, K. et al. Nuclear p53 immunoreaction associated with poor prognosis of breast cancer. Jpn. J. Cancer Res. 82, 835–840 (1991). · DOI · Paper page
  40. Shiao, Y. H., Chen, V. W., Scheer, W. D., Wu, X. C. & Correa, P. Racial disparity in the association of p53 gene alterations with breast cancer survival. Cancer Res. 55, 1485–1490 (1995).
  41. Andersson, J. et al. Worse survival for TP53 (p53)-mutated breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant CMF. Ann. Oncol. 16, 743–748 (2005). · doi:10.1093/annonc/mdi150
  42. Olivier, M. et al. The clinical value of somatic TP53 gene mutations in 1,794 patients with breast cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 12, 1157–1167 (2006). · DOI · Paper page
  43. Bergh, J., Norberg, T., Sjogren, S., Lindgren, A. & Holmberg, L. Complete sequencing of the p53 gene provides prognostic information in breast cancer patients, particularly in relation to adjuvant systemic therapy and radiotherapy. Nat. Med. 1, 1029–1034 (1995). · DOI · Paper page
  44. Ungerleider, N. A. et al. Breast cancer survival predicted by TP53 mutation status differs markedly depending on treatment. Breast Cancer Res. 20, 115 (2018). · DOI

Cited by

See all 6

Metadata

Authors
Hurson, A. N., Abubakar, M., Hamilton, A. M., Conway, K., Hoadley, K. A., Love, M. I., Olshan, A. F., Perou, C. M., Garcia-Closas, M., & Troester, M. A.
ORCID
Venue
npj Breast Cancer
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2022-06-14
Volume
8
Issue
1
ISSN
2374-4677
DOI
10.1038/s41523-022-00437-7
Cited by
6
References
1
Language
en
Licence
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | National Institutes of Health (F31CA257388, R01CA253450)
  • Susan G. Komen (OGUNC1202)
  • U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | National Cancer Institute (P50-CA58223)

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: Prognostic significance of RNA-based TP53 pathway function among estrogen receptor positive and negative breast cancer cases. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/s41523-022-00437-7
The paper
Hurson, A. N., Abubakar, M., Hamilton, A. M., Conway, K., Hoadley, K. A., Love, M. I., Olshan, A. F., Perou, C. M., Garcia-Closas, M., & Troester, M. A. (2022). Prognostic significance of RNA-based TP53 pathway function among estrogen receptor positive and negative breast cancer cases. npj Breast Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41523-022-00437-7

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.