ArticleJournal of the Korean Surgical Society2012
Characterization of biological responses of colorectal cancer cells to anticancer regimens.
Article in Journal of the Korean Surgical Society, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Characterization of Anti-Angiogenic Chemo-Sensitization via Longitudinal Ultrasound Localization Microscopy in Colorectal Carcinoma Tumor Xenografts.IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering · 2022Article
- Effects of Chemotherapy for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer on the TGF-β Signaling and Related miRNAs hsa-miR-17-5p, hsa-miR-21-5p and hsa-miR-93-5p.Cell biochemistry and biophysics · 2021Article
- Feasibility of proposed single-nucleotide polymorphisms as predictive markers for targeted regimens in metastatic colorectal cancer.British journal of cancer · 2013Article
- A zebrafish colorectal xenograft model for chemotherapy response.Romanian journal of morphology and embryology = Revue roumaine de morphologie et embryologieArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIdentification of subgroups of patients who differ in their response to treatment could help to establish which of the best available chemotherapeutic options are best, based on biological activity. In metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC), novel molecular-targeted agents that act on pathways that regulate cell growth, the cell cycle, apoptosis, angiogenesis, and invasion are being developed. Here, we employed an in vitro chemosensitivity assay to evaluate the biological efficacy of conventional monotherapies and combination chemotherapy with targeted drugs.
methodsThe chemosensitivities of 12 CRC cell lines to the established regimens FOLFOX (5-fluorouracil [5-FU] + leucovorin + oxaliplatin) and FOLFIRI (5-FU + leucovorin + irinotecan) and to therapy with these regimens in combination with the biologically targeted drugs bevacizumab or cetuximab were comparatively evaluated for their effects on apoptotic and autophagic cell death processes, angiogenesis, and invasion.
resultsEach of the chemotherapeutic regimens promoted apoptotic cell death and invasion. All drug regimens caused significantly greater apoptotic cell death with activation of caspase-3 in SW480 cells compared to other cells, effects that were associated with a remarkable reduction in matrix metalloproteinase-9 activity. The FOLFOX regimen more effectively promoted apoptotic cell death, angiogenesis, and invasion than the FOLFIRI regimen. Combination therapy with FOLFOX/FOLFIRI regimen and bevacizumab produced a moderate angiogenesis-blocking effect in most cell lines.
conclusionThe results validate our in vitro chemosensitivity assay, and suggest that it may be applied to help determine adequate regimens in individual CRC patients based on the biological characteristics of their tumors.
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.