ReviewDer Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen2006
[Minimal residual tumor in gastrointestinal carcinoma. Relevance to prognosis and oncologic surgical consequences].
Review in Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Isolated tumor cells as a consequence of minimal residual disease are often not detectable by routine diagnostic procedures. However, before or after surgery, isolated tumor cells in lymph nodes, the peritoneal cavity, blood, or bone marrow can frequently be identified by immunohistochemical or molecular methods. Failure to reveal the presence of such cells results in under-staging of tumor patients and may constitute the source of unexpected tumor recurrence after radical surgery. These facts emphasize the importance of isolated tumor cells at least as a surrogate marker. The frequency of appearance of isolated tumor cells in different organ systems also depends on the type of primary tumor. Developments in modern detection methods have led to increasing sensitivity but at the expense of specificity. Isolated tumor cells demonstrate remarkable heterogeneity with respect to proliferative potential and tumorigenicity. This characteristic is also reflected by a striking variability in the expression of various genes conditioning the aforementioned biological behavior. Unfortunately there is also remarkable heterogeneity in methods used for sampling and processing patient material as well as for the enrichment and detection of isolated tumor cells. Despite the ongoing controversies concerning detection methods and biological significance of isolated tumor cells, several clinical trials providing data supporting the prognostic relevance of minimal residual disease should also be considered for gastrointestinal carcinoma. In future this finding should be integrated in the planning of trials in surgical oncology, and "minimal residual disease" should receive stronger attention as a stratification criterion in such clinical studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.