Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18037661›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical pathology2008

Bone marrow micrometastasis in breast cancer: review of detection methods, prognostic impact and biological issues.

A Vincent-Salomon, F C Bidard, J Y Pierga

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical pathology, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 77 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. It is time to prepare for D-CARE!Annals of translational medicine · 2020
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

A Vincent-SalomonInstitut Curie, Paris, France. anne.salomon@curie.net
F C Bidard
J Y Pierga
Institut Curie · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Immunocytochemical detection of disseminated tumour cells in the bone marrow of patients with primary breast cancer at surgery has been shown to be an independent prognostic factor in single institutional studies and in a large pooled analysis. However, bone marrow sampling and assessment of disseminated tumour cells is not a routine procedure in the clinical management of patients with breast cancer, but will certainly play a role in the near future for risk stratification and monitoring of therapeutic efficacy. Accurate identification of disseminated tumour cells in bone marrow must be based on standardised methodologies and procedures. This review describes these methodologies and the standardised morphological criteria used for disseminated tumour cell detection. The prognostic value of circulating tumour cells detection in peripheral blood is demonstrated in patients with metastatic disease but remains to be substantiated at early stage. The significance of disseminated tumour cells in bone marrow and in the blood for the prediction of response to therapy is briefly summarised. Finally, this review addresses the main biological questions raised by disseminated tumour cells, in particular understanding tumour dormancy and identifying metastatic stem cells.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsBone Marrow ExaminationBone Marrow NeoplasmsFemaleHumansNeoplastic Cells, CirculatingNeoplastic Stem CellsPrognosis

Identifiers

PMID18037661
PMCPMC2564844
OpenAlexW2136989218

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.