The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Somatic mutations in the p53 gene and prognosis in breast cancer: a meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
Many studies have investigated the association between alterations in the p53 gene and clinical outcome of breast cancer, and most investigators have reported poorer overall and disease-free survival (as indicated by a relative hazard (RH) greater than one) in breast cancer cases with somatic mutations in p53. However, different studies have produced widely differing RH estimates, ranging from no risk (RH = 1) to a relative hazard of 23, and not all of these results have been statistically significant. We have therefore reviewed all the published studies that have investigated the association between somatic mutations in the p53 gene and breast cancer prognosis and used standard techniques of meta-analysis to combine the results of these studies to produce a more precise estimate of the prognostic significance of p53 mutations. Eleven studies investigated overall survival in a total of 2319 unselected cases. The RH estimates from these ranged from 1 to 23.4 with a combined RH estimate of 2.0 (confidence interval 1.7-2.5). Three studies investigated the role of p53 in node-negative patients and in these, the combined estimate of RH was 1.7 (1.2-2.3). For three studies of node-positive breast cancer the combined risk estimate was 2.6 (1.7-3.9). The inclusion of p53 mutation screening in large breast cancer clinical trials seems warranted in the light of these results. Analysis of large numbers of cases matched for stage and therapy will allow definitive clarification of the value of p53 mutational status in prognostication, and possibly choice of therapy.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Lane, D. P. (1992) · Nature · doi:10.1038/358015a0 · Cited by 5,138
Egger, M., & Smith, G. D. (1995) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.310.6982.752 · Cited by 508
Cited by
The p53 pathway in breast cancer
Gasco, M., Shami, S., & Crook, T. (2002) · Breast Cancer Research · doi:10.1186/bcr426 · Cited by 393
NUMB controls p53 tumour suppressor activity
Colaluca, I. N., Tosoni, D., Nuciforo, P., Senic-Matuglia, F., Galimberti, V., Viale, G., Pece, S., & Di Fiore, P. P. (2008) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature06412 · Cited by 385
Børresen-Dale, A.-L. (2003) · Human Mutation · doi:10.1002/humu.10174 · Cited by 354
Targeting STAT3 affects melanoma on multiple fronts
Kortylewski, M., Jove, R., & Yu, H. (2005) · Cancer and Metastasis Reviews · doi:10.1007/s10555-005-1580-1 · Cited by 280
TSPYL5 suppresses p53 levels and function by physical interaction with USP7.
Epping, M. T., Meijer, L. A. T., Krijgsman, O., Bos, J. L., Pandolfi, P. P., & Bernards, R. (2011) · Nature Cell Biology · doi:10.1038/ncb2142 · Cited by 117
Metadata
- Authors
- Pharoah, P. D. P., Day, N. E., & Caldas, C.
- Venue
- British Journal of Cancer
- Published
- 1999-07-30
- Volume
- 80
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1968-1973
- ISSN
- 0007-0920 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-1827
- OpenAlex
- W2094424714
- Cited by
- 308
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 0.60
- 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: Somatic mutations in the p53 gene and prognosis in breast cancer: a meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/sj.bjc.6690628
- The paper
- Pharoah, P. D. P., Day, N. E., & Caldas, C. (1999). Somatic mutations in the p53 gene and prognosis in breast cancer: a meta-analysis. British Journal of Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6690628
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.