Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19892663›Full record

Trial reportCancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.)2009

Phase II randomized, placebo-controlled trial of green tea extract in patients with high-risk oral premalignant lesions.

Anne S Tsao, Diane Liu, Jack Martin, Xi-ming Tang, J Jack Lee, Adel K El-Naggar, Ignacio Wistuba, Kirk S Culotta, Li Mao, Ann Gillenwater and 3 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.), 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 102 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
102citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
9.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

102 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 248 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Green tea (Camellia sinensis) for the prevention of cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Gene expression profiling predicts the development of oral cancer.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2011
    Trial
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Oral Health and Nutraceutical Agents.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Review
  20. Review

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Anne S TsaoDepartment of Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas 77030, USA.
Diane Liu
Jack Martin
Xi-ming Tang
J Jack Lee
Adel K El-Naggar
Ignacio Wistuba
Kirk S Culotta
Li Mao
Ann Gillenwater
Yuko M Sagesaka
Waun K Hong
Vassiliki Papadimitrakopoulou
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · US

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Scott Kopetz · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Epidemiologic and preclinical data support the oral cancer prevention potential of green tea extract (GTE). We randomly assigned patients with high-risk oral premalignant lesions (OPL) to receive GTE at 500, 750, or 1,000 mg/m(2) or placebo thrice daily for 12 weeks, evaluating biomarkers in baseline and 12-week biopsies. The OPL clinical response rate was higher in all GTE arms (n = 28; 50%) versus placebo (n = 11; 18.2%; P = 0.09) but did not reach statistical significance. However, the two higher-dose GTE arms [58.8% (750 and 1,000 mg/m(2)), 36.4% (500 mg/m(2)), and 18.2% (placebo); P = 0.03] had higher responses, suggesting a dose-response effect. GTE treatment also improved histology (21.4% versus 9.1%; P = 0.65), although not statistically significant. GTE was well tolerated, although higher doses increased insomnia/nervousness but produced no grade 4 toxicity. Higher mean baseline stromal vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) correlated with a clinical (P = 0.04) but not histologic response. Baseline scores of other biomarkers (epithelial VEGF, p53, Ki-67, cyclin D1, and p16 promoter methylation) were not associated with a response or survival. Baseline p16 promoter methylation (n = 5) was associated with a shorter cancer-free survival. Stromal VEGF and cyclin D1 expression were downregulated in clinically responsive GTE patients and upregulated in nonresponsive patients at 12 weeks (versus at baseline). An extended (median, 27.5 months) follow-up showed a median time to oral cancer of 46.4 months. GTE may suppress OPLs, in part through reducing angiogenic stimulus (stromal VEGF). Higher doses of GTE may improve short-term (12-week) OPL outcome. The present results support longer-term clinical testing of GTE for oral cancer prevention.

Indexed as

PhytotherapyTeaAdministration, OralAdolescentAdultAgedDose-Response Relationship, DrugFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMouth NeoplasmsPlacebosPlant ExtractsPrecancerous ConditionsReverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain ReactionPlacebosPlant ExtractsRNA, MessengerTeaVascular Endothelial Growth Factor A

Identifiers

PMID19892663
PMCPMC4243312
OpenAlexW2141680653

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.