Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19536109›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Cancer2009

Genetic prognostic and predictive markers in colorectal cancer.

Axel Walther, Elaine Johnstone, Charles Swanton, Rachel Midgley, Ian Tomlinson, David Kerr

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Cancer, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 342 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
342citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

342 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Review
  14. Frequent Detection ofHuman mutation · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

282 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Axel WaltherDepartment of Medicine, Royal Marsden Hospital, Downs Road, Sutton, SM2 5PT, UK.
Elaine Johnstone
Charles Swanton
Rachel Midgley
Ian Tomlinson
David Kerr

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite many studies of the likely survival outcome of individual patients with colorectal cancer, our knowledge of this subject remains poor. Until recently, we had virtually no understanding of individual responses to therapy, but the discovery of the KRAS mutation as a marker of probable failure of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-targeted therapy is a first step in the tailoring of treatment to the individual. With the application of molecular analyses, as well as the ability to perform high-throughput screens, there has been an explosive increase in the number of markers thought to be associated with prognosis and treatment outcome in this disease. In this Review, we attempt to summarize the sometimes confusing findings, and critically assess those markers already in the public domain.

Indexed as

beta CateninBiomarkers, TumorCamptothecinCapecitabineChromosomes, Human, Pair 18Colorectal NeoplasmsDeoxycytidineFluorouracilGene Expression ProfilingGenes, APCGenes, p53Genomic InstabilityHumansIrinotecanMicrosatellite InstabilityMutationbeta CateninBiomarkers, TumorBRAF protein, humanCamptothecinCapecitabineDeoxycytidineFluorouracilIrinotecanKRAS protein, humanOrganoplatinum CompoundsOxaliplatinProto-Oncogene ProteinsProto-Oncogene Proteins B-rafProto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras)ras Proteins

Identifiers

PMID19536109

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.