Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 381

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The p53 Gene in Breast Cancer: Prognostic Value of Complementary DNA Sequencing Versus Immunohistochemistry

Sjogren, S., Inganas, M., Norberg, T., Lindgren, A., Nordgren, H., Holmberg, L., Bergh, J.·1996·JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Mutations in the p53 tumor suppressor gene (also known as TP53) have been detected in a wide variety of human cancers. In breast cancer, the presence of p53 gene alterations has been associated with worse prognosis. PURPOSE: We compared a complementary DNA (cDNA)-based sequencing method and an immunohistochemical (IHC) method for their abilities to detect p53 mutations in breast cancer specimens. In addition, we determined the prognostic value of information obtained when these two methods were used. METHODS: Specimens from 316 primary breast tumors were evaluated for the presence of mutant p53 protein by use of the mouse monoclonal antibody Pab 1801 (that recognizes both wild-type and mutant forms of p53) and standard IHC methods. In addition, the entire coding region of p53 genes expressed in these tumors was screened for mutations by combining reverse transcription, the polymerase chain reaction, and DNA sequencing. Probabilities for overall survival (OS), breast cancer-corrected survival (BCCS; death from breast cancer is the considered event), and relapse-free survival (RFS) were estimated by use of the Kaplan-Meier method, and survival curves for different patient subgroups were compared by use of the logrank method. All reported P values are from two-sided tests. RESULTS: Sixty-nine (22%) of 316 tumors had p53 gene mutations detected by the cDNA-based sequencing method; only 31 (45%) of these mutations were located in evolutionarily conserved portions of the p53 coding region. Sixty-four tumors (20% of the total) had elevated levels of p53 protein as detected by IHC, suggesting the presence of mutations. Of the sequencing-positive tumors (i.e., p53 mutant), 23 exhibited negative IHC reactions, indicating that IHC failed to detect 33% of the mutations. Furthermore, 19 of the IHC-positive tumors were sequencing negative (i.e., p53 wild-type), suggesting a 30% false-positive frequency with IHC. Four tumors (1.3% of the total) could not be analyzed by the cDNA-based sequencing method, and three tumors (1% of the total) could not be analyzed by IHC. The 5-year estimates for RFS, BCCS, and OS were significantly shorter for patients with p53 sequencing-positive tumors than for patients with sequencing-negative tumors (P = .001, P = .01, and P = .0003, respectively). Patients with IHC-positive tumors showed reduced survival in all three categories when compared with those with IHC-negative tumors, but the differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Use of a cDNA-based sequencing method to determine the status of the p53 gene in primary breast cancers yielded better prognostic information than IHC performed with the Pab 1801 monoclonal antibody.

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 · 10.1093/jnci/88.3-4.173

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.

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

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Sjogren, S., Inganas, M., Norberg, T., Lindgren, A., Nordgren, H., Holmberg, L., & Bergh, J.
Venue
JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute
Published
1996-02-21
Volume
88
Issue
3-4
Pages
173-182
ISSN
  • 0027-8874 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2105
OpenAlex
W2114473143
Cited by
381
References
0
FWCI
14.18
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.