Trial reportClinical & experimental metastasis2013
Global microRNA profiling in favorable prognosis subgroups of cancer of unknown primary (CUP) demonstrates no significant expression differences with metastases of matched known primary tumors.
Trial report in Clinical & experimental metastasis, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analysis of cancer stem cell mechanism and immune profiling in breast cancer of unknown primary.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2026Article
- Clinical features of cancer with unknown primary site (clinical features, treatment, prognosis of cancer with unknown primary site).BMC cancer · 2022Article
- Umbilical Nodule Metastasis from Unknown Primary: Diagnostic and Therapeutic Dilemma.Surgery journal (New York, N.Y.) · 2022Article
- MicroRNA expression profiling with a droplet digital PCR assay enables molecular diagnosis and prognosis of cancers of unknown primary.Molecular oncology · 2021Article
- Narrative review on serous primary peritoneal carcinoma of unknown primary site: four questions to be answered.Annals of translational medicine · 2020Review
- Metastatic Squamous Cell Carcinoma to the Cervical Lymph Nodes From an Unknown Primary Cancer: Management in the HPV Era.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Review
- Cancer of Unknown Primary Site: Real Entity or Misdiagnosed Disease?Journal of Cancer · 2020Review
- Molecular characterisation and liquid biomarkers in Carcinoma of Unknown Primary (CUP): taking the 'U' out of 'CUP'.British journal of cancer · 2019Review
- Antiproliferative and Pro-Apoptotic Effects of MiR-4286 Inhibition in Melanoma Cells.PloS one · 2016Article
- A mini review on cancer of unknown primary site: A clinical puzzle for the oncologists.Journal of advanced research · 2015Review
- Increased copy number of the DLX4 homeobox gene in breast axillary lymph node metastasis.Cancer genetics · 2014Article
- Gene expression profiling in patients with carcinoma of unknown primary site: from translational research to standard of care.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
No data exist on biologic differences between Cancer of unknown primary (CUP) and metastatic solid tumors of known primary site. We assigned a primary tissue of origin in 40 favorable CUP patients (A: serous peritoneal carcinomatosis n = 14, B: axillary adenocarcinoma n = 8, C: upper squamous cervical adenopathy n = 18) by means of a 64-microRNA assay. Subsequently, we profiled the expression of 733 microRNAs (miRs) in the CUP cases and compared results with metastases from 20 ovarian carcinomas, 10 breast adenocarcinomas, 20 squamous head neck or lung tumors. In the Peritoneal CUP versus Ovarian (Known Primary Metastases) KPM comparison, a total of 12 miR were significantly differentially expressed: higher than twofold expression difference in CUP was seen only for miR-513a-5p (3.7-fold upregulated) and miR-483-5p (2.5-fold upregulated), while miR-708 exhibited a twofold downregulation. In the Breast CUP versus Breast KPM comparison, only miR-29c that were downregulated in CUP by 2.7-fold satisfied the FDR threshold. miR-30e and miR-27b, downregulated in ovarian CUPs versus KPMs, were also non-significantly downregulated in breast CUP by 2.0- and 1.4-fold respectively. Six miRs, which belong to the 17-92 oncocluster showed a trend of upregulation in Breast CUP versus Breast KPM cases. A CUP signature remains elusive.
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.