The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Development and verification of the PAM50-based Prosigna breast cancer gene signature assay
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: The four intrinsic subtypes of breast cancer, defined by differential expression of 50 genes (PAM50), have been shown to be predictive of risk of recurrence and benefit of hormonal therapy and chemotherapy. Here we describe the development of Prosigna™, a PAM50-based subtype classifier and risk model on the NanoString nCounter Dx Analysis System intended for decentralized testing in clinical laboratories. METHODS: 514 formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) breast cancer patient samples were used to train prototypical centroids for each of the intrinsic subtypes of breast cancer on the NanoString platform. Hierarchical cluster analysis of gene expression data was used to identify the prototypical centroids defined in previous PAM50 algorithm training exercises. 304 FFPE patient samples from a well annotated clinical cohort in the absence of adjuvant systemic therapy were then used to train a subtype-based risk model (i.e. Prosigna ROR score). 232 samples from a tamoxifen-treated patient cohort were used to verify the prognostic accuracy of the algorithm prior to initiating clinical validation studies. RESULTS: The gene expression profiles of each of the four Prosigna subtype centroids were consistent with those previously published using the PCR-based PAM50 method. Similar to previously published classifiers, tumor samples classified as Luminal A by Prosigna had the best prognosis compared to samples classified as one of the three higher-risk tumor subtypes. The Prosigna Risk of Recurrence (ROR) score model was verified to be significantly associated with prognosis as a continuous variable and to add significant information over both commonly available IHC markers and Adjuvant! Online. CONCLUSIONS: The results from the training and verification data sets show that the FDA-cleared and CE marked Prosigna test provides an accurate estimate of the risk of distant recurrence in hormone receptor positive breast cancer and is also capable of identifying a tumor's intrinsic subtype that is consistent with the previously published PCR-based PAM50 assay. Subsequent analytical and clinical validation studies confirm the clinical accuracy and technical precision of the Prosigna PAM50 assay in a decentralized setting.
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
Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420 · Cited by 24,532
Direct multiplexed measurement of gene expression with color-coded probe pairs
Geiss, G. K., Bumgarner, R. E., Birditt, B., Dahl, T., Dowidar, N., Dunaway, D. L., Fell, H. P., Ferree, S., George, R. D., Grogan, T., et al. (2008) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt1385 · Cited by 2,066
Self-citationThe External RNA Controls Consortium: a progress report
The External RNA Controls Consortium (2005) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth1005-731 · Cited by 373
Cited by
Artificial intelligence in healthcare
Yu, K.-H., Beam, A. L., & Kohane, I. S. (2018) · Nature Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1038/s41551-018-0305-z · Cited by 2,817
Lightbody, G., Haberland, V., Browne, F., Taggart, L., Zheng, H., Parkes, E., & Blayney, J. K. (2019) · Briefings in Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bib/bby051 · Cited by 173
He, L., Pratt, H., Gao, M., Wei, F., Weng, Z., & Struhl, K. (2021) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.67312 · Cited by 122
An approach for normalization and quality control for NanoString RNA expression data
Bhattacharya, A., Hamilton, A. M., Furberg, H., Pietzak, E., Purdue, M. P., Troester, M. A., Hoadley, K. A., & Love, M. I. (2021) · Briefings in Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bib/bbaa163 · Cited by 122
Mutational signatures and mutable motifs in cancer genomes
Rogozin, I. B., Pavlov, Y. I., Goncearenco, A., De, S., Lada, A. G., Poliakov, E., Panchenko, A. R., & Cooper, D. N. (2017) · Briefings in Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bib/bbx049 · Cited by 58
Morris, J. S., Luthra, R., Liu, Y., Duose, D. Y., Lee, W., Reddy, N. G., Windham, J., Chen, H., Tong, Z., Zhang, B., et al. (2021) · Clinical Cancer Research · doi:10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-20-2403 · Cited by 36
Shamai, G., Cohen, S., Binenbaum, Y., Sabo, E., Cretu, A., Mayer, C., Barshack, I., Goldman, T., Bar-Sela, G., Polónia, A., et al. (2025) · doi:10.1101/2025.05.15.25327686 · Cited by 3
Metadata
- Authors
- Wallden, B., Storhoff, J., Nielsen, T., Dowidar, N., Schaper, C., Ferree, S., Liu, S., Leung, S., Geiss, G., Snider, J., Vickery, T., Davies, S. R., Mardis, E. R., Gnant, M., Sestak, I., Ellis, M. J., Perou, C. M., Bernard, P. S., & Parker, J. S.
- Venue
- BMC Medical Genomics
- Published
- 2015-08-22
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 54-54
- ISSN
- 1755-8794 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2106833357
- Cited by
- 542
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 9.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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.