ArticleFrontiers in oncology2012
Stratification and Prognostic Relevance of Jass's Molecular Classification of Colorectal Cancer.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Different definitions of CpG island methylator phenotype and outcomes of colorectal cancer: a systematic review.Clinical epigenetics · 2016Pooled it
- Prognostic value of CpG island methylator phenotype among colorectal cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology · 2014Pooled it
- Microbial dysbiosis drives colorectal carcinogenesis via integrated inflammatory, metabolic, and biofilm pathways.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Review
- Distinctive chromosomal, mutational and transcriptional profiling in colon versus rectal cancers.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Article
- Clinical and immunopathological evaluation and its comparison with IHC consensus molecular subtypes of colorectal cancer.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Geotemporal Fluorophore Biodistribution Mapping of Colorectal Cancer: Micro and Macroscopic Insights.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Article
- Correlation between color doppler flow pattern and molecular biology in elderly patients with colon cancer.BMC gastroenterology · 2023Article
- Association between mutational subgroups, Warburg-subtypes, and survival in patients with colorectal cancer.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Postmenopausal Hormone Therapy and Colorectal Cancer Risk by Molecularly Defined Subtypes and Tumor Location.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2020Article
- Satisfying your neuro-oncologist: a fast approach to routine molecular glioma diagnostics.Neuro-oncology · 2018Article
- Colorectal cancer: genetic abnormalities, tumor progression, tumor heterogeneity, clonal evolution and tumor-initiating cells.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Review
- CpG Island Methylator Phenotype-High Colorectal Cancers and Their Prognostic Implications and Relationships with the Serrated Neoplasia Pathway.Gut and liver · 2017Review
- Epigenetic Alterations in Colorectal Cancer: Emerging Biomarkers.Gastroenterology · 2015Review
- Association between molecular subtypes of colorectal cancer and patient survival.Gastroenterology · 2015Article
- Progress and opportunities in molecular pathological epidemiology of colorectal premalignant lesions.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2014Review
- Molecular pathological epidemiology of epigenetics: emerging integrative science to analyze environment, host, and disease.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe current proposed model of colorectal tumorigenesis is based primarily on CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP), microsatellite instability (MSI), KRAS, BRAF, and methylation status of 0-6-Methylguanine DNA Methyltransferase (MGMT) and classifies tumors into five subgroups. The aim of this study is to validate this molecular classification and test its prognostic relevance.
methodsThree hundred two patients were included in this study. Molecular analysis was performed for five CIMP-related promoters (CRABP1, MLH1, p16INK4a, CACNA1G, NEUROG1), MGMT, MSI, KRAS, and BRAF. Methylation in at least 4 promoters or in one to three promoters was considered CIMP-high and CIMP-low (CIMP-H/L), respectively.
resultsCIMP-H, CIMP-L, and CIMP-negative were found in 7.1, 43, and 49.9% cases, respectively. One hundred twenty-three tumors (41%) could not be classified into any one of the proposed molecular subgroups, including 107 CIMP-L, 14 CIMP-H, and two CIMP-negative cases. The 10 year survival rate for CIMP-high patients [22.6% (95%CI: 7-43)] was significantly lower than for CIMP-L or CIMP-negative (p = 0.0295). Only the combined analysis of BRAF and CIMP (negative versus L/H) led to distinct prognostic subgroups.
conclusionAlthough CIMP status has an effect on outcome, our results underline the need for standardized definitions of low- and high-level CIMP, which clearly hinders an effective prognostic and molecular classification of colorectal cancer.
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.