ReviewCurrent opinion in oncology2012
Cancer stem cells: relevance to clinical transplantation.
Review in Current opinion in oncology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Oncogenic Viruses in Organ Transplantation: Implications of Virus-Host Interactions for Cancer Development.Viruses · 2025Review
- Lipid tethering of breast tumor cells reduces cell aggregation during mammosphere formation.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- A narrative review of central nervous system involvement in acute leukemias.Annals of translational medicine · 2021Review
- Identification of cancer stem cell-related biomarkers in intestinal-type and diffuse-type gastric cancer by stemness index and weighted correlation network analysis.Journal of translational medicine · 2020Article
- A cancer stem cell model as the point of origin of cancer-associated fibroblasts in tumor microenvironment.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- A CD138-independent strategy to detect minimal residual disease and circulating tumour cells in multiple myeloma.British journal of haematology · 2016Article
- Adhesion receptors as therapeutic targets for circulating tumor cells.Frontiers in oncology · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purpose of reviewDespite blood or marrow transplantation (BMT) being arguably the most active modality against hematologic malignancies, relapses remain the major reason for failure. Many cancers have now been shown to harbor cells that are phenotypically and biologically similar to normal cells with self-renewal capacity; these so-called cancer stem cells (CSCs) typically constitute only a small fraction of the total tumor burden, but are hypothesized to be responsible for relapse after conventional-dose therapy. Here, we review whether CSCs may have relevance to BMT. RECENT
findingsCSCs appear to be relatively resistant to standard anticancer therapies in vitro. The often-dramatic responses induced by chemotherapy in most hematologic malignancies are likely a consequence of their impressive activity against the bulk tumor cells. Although the clinical importance of CSCs remains unproven, new evidence suggests that the limited durability of many of these responses reflect resistant CSCs. It is possible that CSCs are also relatively resistant to both high-dose myeloablative conditioning and allogeneic graft-versus-tumor effects. Data on the ability of most hematologic CSCs to circulate even early in the natural history of a malignancy also raises concerns about contamination of autografts contributing to relapse. SUMMARY: Emerging data for the first time suggest CSCs may be responsible for relapse, even after BMT. However, BMT may be a particularly compelling setting to test CSC-targeting strategies because it provides the most effective clinical debulking of hematologic malignancies, and because CSC-targeting strategies may also enhance allogeneic antitumor immunity.
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.