Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 514

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Biology of Progesterone Receptor Loss in Breast Cancer and Its Implications for Endocrine Therapy

Open access
Cui, Xiaojiang, Schiff, Rachel, Arpino, Grazia, Osborne, C. Kent, Lee, Adrian V.·2005·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

The response to endocrine therapy in breast cancer correlates with estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) status. ER-positive/PR-negative breast cancers respond less well to selective ER modulator (SERM) therapy than ER-positive/PR-positive tumors. The predictive value of PR has long been attributed to the dependence of PR expression on ER activity, with the absence of PR reflecting a nonfunctional ER and resistance to hormonal therapy. However, recent clinical and laboratory evidence suggests that ER-positive/PR-negative breast cancers may be specifically resistant to SERMs, whereas they may be less resistant to estrogen withdrawal therapy with aromatase inhibitors, which is a result inconsistent with the nonfunctional ER theory. Novel alternative molecular mechanisms potentially explaining SERM resistance in ER-positive/PR-negative tumors have been suggested by recent experimental indications that growth factors may downregulate PR levels. Thus, the absence of PR may not simply indicate a lack of ER activity, but rather may reflect hyperactive cross talk between ER and growth factor signaling pathways that downregulate PR even as they activate other ER functions. Therefore, ER-positive/PR-negative breast tumors might best be treated by completely blocking ER action via estrogen withdrawal with aromatase inhibitors, by targeted ER degradation, or by combined therapy targeting both ER and growth factor signaling pathways. In this review, we will discuss the biology and etiology of ER-positive/PR-negative breast cancer, highlighting recent data on molecular cross talk between ER and growth factor signaling pathways and demonstrating how PR might be a useful marker of these activities. Finally, we will consider the clinical implications of these observations.

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 · 10.1200/jco.2005.09.004

Cites

4 of 4 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

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 4 references

Cited by

See all 514

Metadata

Authors
Cui, X., Schiff, R., Arpino, G., Osborne, C. K., & Lee, A. V.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2005-10-20
Volume
23
Issue
30
Pages
7721-7735
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2063874882
Cited by
514
References
4
FWCI
11.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Biology of Progesterone Receptor Loss in Breast Cancer and Its Implications for Endocrine Therapy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2005.09.004
The paper
Cui, X., Schiff, R., Arpino, G., Osborne, C. K., & Lee, A. V. (2005). Biology of Progesterone Receptor Loss in Breast Cancer and Its Implications for Endocrine Therapy. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2005.09.004

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.