Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20655286›Full record

ReviewMolecular oncology2010

Progress in understanding melanoma propagation.

Mark Shackleton, Elsa Quintana

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Molecular oncology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 3 countries.

Mark ShackletonMelanoma Research Laboratory and Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, Australia. mark.shackleton@petermac.org
Elsa Quintana
Howard Hughes Medical Institute · US

Funding

Howard Hughes Medical Institute
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Melanoma, like most cancers, is a disease that wreaks havoc mostly through its propensity to spread and establish secondary tumors at sites that are anatomically distant from the primary tumor. The consideration of models of cancer progression is therefore important to understand the essence of this disease. Previous work has suggested that melanoma may propagate according to a cancer stem cell (CSC) model in which rare tumorigenic and bulk non-tumorigenic cells are organized into stable hierarchies within tumors. However, recent studies using assays that are more permissive for revealing tumorigenic potential indicate that it will not be possible to cure patients by focusing research and therapy on rare populations of cells within melanoma tumors. Studies of the nature of tumorigenic melanoma cells reveal that these cells may gain a growth, metastasis and/or therapy resistance advantage by acquiring new genetic mutations and by reversible epigenetic mechanisms. In this light, efforts to link the phenotypes, genotypes and epigenotypes of melanoma cells with differences in their in vivo malignant potential provide the greatest hope of advancing the exciting progress finally being made against this disease.

Indexed as

Disease ProgressionHumansMelanomaModels, BiologicalNeoplastic Stem CellsSkin Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID20655286
PMCPMC3033805
OpenAlexW2117249112

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.