The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Quantitative In situ Analysis of β-Catenin Expression in Breast Cancer Shows Decreased Expression Is Associated with Poor Outcome
Abstract
The role of β-catenin in breast cancer and its prognostic value is controversial. The prognostic value had been assessed previously in a series of nonquantitative immunohistochemical studies with conflicting results. In efforts to clarify the relationship between β-catenin protein expression and breast cancer prognosis, we have assessed a retrospective 600 case cohort of breast cancer tumors from the Yale Pathology archives on tissue microarrays. They were assessed using automated quantitative analysis (AQUA) with a series of array-embedded cell lines for which the β-catenin concentration was standardized by an ELISA assay. The expression levels of the standard clinical markers HER2, estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and Ki-67 were also assessed on the same cohort. X-tile software was used to select optimal protein concentration cutpoints and to evaluate the outcome using a training set and a validation set. We found that low-level expression of membranous β-catenin is associated with significantly worse outcome (38% versus 76%, 10-year survival, validation set log-rank P = 0.0016). Multivariate analysis of this marker, assessed in a proportional hazards model with tumor size, age, node status, nuclear grade, ER, PR, HER2, and Ki-67, is still highly significant with a hazard ratio of 6.8 (P < 0.0001, 95% confidence interval, 3.1-15.1). These results suggest that loss of β-catenin expression at the membrane, as assessed by objective quantitative analysis methods, may be useful as a prognostic marker or may be part of a useful algorithm for prognosis in breast cancer. (Cancer Res 2006; 66(10): 5487-94)
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
Polakis, P. (2000) · Genes & Development · doi:10.1101/gad.14.15.1837 · Cited by 3,183
β-Catenin and Tcfs in Mammary Development and Cancer
Hatsell, S., Rowlands, T., Hiremath, M., & Cowin, P. (2003) · Journal of Mammary Gland Biology and Neoplasia · doi:10.1023/a:1025944723047 · Cited by 209
Cited by
Tumor-Infiltrating CD8+Lymphocytes Predict Clinical Outcome in Breast Cancer
Mahmoud, S. M. A., Paish, E. C., Powe, D. G., Macmillan, R. D., Grainge, M. J., Lee, A. H. S., Ellis, I. O., & Green, A. R. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2010.30.5037 · Cited by 1,367
Geyer, F. C., Lacroix-Triki, M., Savage, K., Arnedos, M., Lambros, M. B., MacKay, A., Natrajan, R., & Reis-Filho, J. S. (2011) · Modern Pathology · doi:10.1038/modpathol.2010.205 · Cited by 373
Lazova, R., Camp, R. L., Klump, V., Siddiqui, S. F., Amaravadi, R. K., & Pawelek, J. M. (2012) · Clinical Cancer Research · doi:10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-11-1282 · Cited by 305
Self-citationLiu, W., Xing, F., Iiizumi‐Gairani, M., Okuda, H., Watabe, M., Pai, S. K., Pandey, P. R., Hirota, S., Kobayashi, A., Mo, Y., et al. (2012) · EMBO Molecular Medicine · doi:10.1002/emmm.201100190 · Cited by 190
Metadata
- Authors
- Dolled-Filhart, M., McCabe, A., Giltnane, J., Cregger, M., Camp, R. L., & Rimm, D. L.
- Venue
- Cancer Research
- Published
- 2006-05-15
- Volume
- 66
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 5487-5494
- ISSN
- 0008-5472 (ISSN-L)
- 1538-7445
- OpenAlex
- W2119391569
- Cited by
- 180
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 6.52
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Quantitative In situ Analysis of β-Catenin Expression in Breast Cancer Shows Decreased Expression Is Associated with Poor Outcome. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1158/0008-5472.can-06-0100
- The paper
- Dolled-Filhart, M., McCabe, A., Giltnane, J., Cregger, M., Camp, R. L., & Rimm, D. L. (2006). Quantitative In situ Analysis of β-Catenin Expression in Breast Cancer Shows Decreased Expression Is Associated with Poor Outcome. Cancer Research. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.can-06-0100
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.