Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23145004›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2012

Clinical value of prognosis gene expression signatures in colorectal cancer: a systematic review.

Rebeca Sanz-Pamplona, Antoni Berenguer, David Cordero, Samantha Riccadonna, Xavier Solé, Marta Crous-Bou, Elisabet Guinó, Xavier Sanjuan, Sebastiano Biondo, Antonio Soriano and 4 more

Abstract readSystematic ReviewValidation Study
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

53 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Update of the recommendations for the determination of biomarkers in colorectal carcinoma: National Consensus of the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology and the Spanish Society of Pathology.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2020
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Multigene Biomarkers of Pyrethroid Exposure: Exploratory Experiments.Environmental toxicology and chemistry · 2019
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Evolving notions on immune response in colorectal cancer and their implications for biomarker development.Inflammation research : official journal of the European Histamine Research Society ... [et al.] · 2018
    Review
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

14 authors.

Rebeca Sanz-PamplonaUnit of Biomarkers and Susceptibility (UBS), Catalan Institute of Oncology (ICO), Bellvitge Biomedical Research Institute (IDIBELL), and CIBERESP, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain.
Antoni Berenguer
David Cordero
Samantha Riccadonna
Xavier Solé
Marta Crous-Bou
Elisabet Guinó
Xavier Sanjuan
Sebastiano Biondo
Antonio Soriano
Giuseppe Jurman
Gabriel Capella
Cesare Furlanello
Victor Moreno

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe traditional staging system is inadequate to identify those patients with stage II colorectal cancer (CRC) at high risk of recurrence or with stage III CRC at low risk. A number of gene expression signatures to predict CRC prognosis have been proposed, but none is routinely used in the clinic. The aim of this work was to assess the prediction ability and potential clinical usefulness of these signatures in a series of independent datasets.

methodsA literature review identified 31 gene expression signatures that used gene expression data to predict prognosis in CRC tissue. The search was based on the PubMed database and was restricted to papers published from January 2004 to December 2011. Eleven CRC gene expression datasets with outcome information were identified and downloaded from public repositories. Random Forest classifier was used to build predictors from the gene lists. Matthews correlation coefficient was chosen as a measure of classification accuracy and its associated p-value was used to assess association with prognosis. For clinical usefulness evaluation, positive and negative post-tests probabilities were computed in stage II and III samples.

resultsFive gene signatures showed significant association with prognosis and provided reasonable prediction accuracy in their own training datasets. Nevertheless, all signatures showed low reproducibility in independent data. Stratified analyses by stage or microsatellite instability status showed significant association but limited discrimination ability, especially in stage II tumors. From a clinical perspective, the most predictive signatures showed a minor but significant improvement over the classical staging system.

conclusionsThe published signatures show low prediction accuracy but moderate clinical usefulness. Although gene expression data may inform prognosis, better strategies for signature validation are needed to encourage their widespread use in the clinic.

Indexed as

TranscriptomeColorectal NeoplasmsHumansNeoplasm StagingPredictive Value of TestsPrognosisRecurrence

Identifiers

PMID23145004
PMCPMC3492249

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.