Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23099994›Full record

ArticleJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2013

A novel predictive strategy by immunohistochemical analysis of four EGFR ligands in metastatic colorectal cancer treated with anti-EGFR antibodies.

Michihiro Yoshida, Takaya Shimura, Mikinori Sato, Masahide Ebi, Takahiro Nakazawa, Hiromitsu Takeyama, Takashi Joh

Open access · greenAbstract readEvaluation StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Epiregulin: roles in normal physiology and cancer.Seminars in cell & developmental biology · 2014
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Michihiro YoshidaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Metabolism, Nagoya City University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, 1 Kawasumi, Mizuho-cho, Mizuho-ku, Nagoya 467-8601, Japan.
Takaya Shimura
Mikinori Sato
Masahide Ebi
Takahiro Nakazawa
Hiromitsu Takeyama
Takashi Joh
Nagoya City University · JPMizuho (Japan) · JPBoston Children's Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAlthough KRAS mutation has been identified as a negative predictive biomarker of anti-EGFR antibodies in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), the efficacy in mCRC patients with KRAS wild-type status remains limited. Anti-EGFR antibodies work by blocking ligand binding, but the significance of EGFR ligands in mCRC has not been completely described. This study was conducted to identify the correlation between all seven EGFR ligands and clinical outcomes in mCRC treated with anti-EGFR antibodies. Furthermore, we determined an appropriate predictive strategy for anti-EGFR antibodies using these EGFR ligands.

methodsAmong 36 mCRC patients who had been treated with cetuximab or panitumumab, we identified 26 mCRC patients with wild-type KRAS status treated properly as the second and further lines and analyzed the relationship between immunoreactivity to seven EGFR ligands and clinical outcomes.

resultsGood clinical outcomes were associated with immunoreactivity against amphiregulin (AR), heparin-binding epidermal growth factor (HB-EGF), transforming growth factor-α (TGF-α), and epiregulin (EREG). Further, patients with immunoreactivity to greater than two of these four ligands (AR, HB-EGF, TGF-α, and EREG) had significantly higher response rate (53.3 vs. 0.0 %, p = 0.004) and disease control rate (93.3 vs. 9.0 %, p = 0.00002) and longer progression-free survival (median PFS: 231 vs. 79 days, p = 0.000008), when compared with patients with immunoreactivity against zero or one ligand.

conclusionsImmunohistochemical analysis of four EGFR ligands (AR, HB-EGF, TGF-α, and EREG) might be a novel predictive biomarker and may help optimize patient selection for cetuximab and panitumumab therapy in patients with mCRC.

Indexed as

ImmunohistochemistryAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntibodiesAntibodies, MonoclonalAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedAntineoplastic AgentsBiomarkers, TumorCarcinomaCetuximabClinical Trials, Phase III as TopicColorectal NeoplasmsErbB ReceptorsFemaleHumansAntibodiesAntibodies, MonoclonalAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedAntineoplastic AgentsBiomarkers, TumorCetuximabErbB ReceptorsKRAS protein, humanLigandsPanitumumabProto-Oncogene ProteinsProto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras)ras Proteins

Identifiers

PMID23099994
PMCPMC11824555
OpenAlexW2022508169

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.