Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23329390›Full record

ArticleGastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association2013

The contribution of cell phenotype to the behavior of gastric cancer.

Enrico Solcia, Catherine Klersy, Alessandro Vanoli, Federica Grillo, Rachele Manca, Francesca Tava, Ombretta Luinetti, Roberto Fiocca

Erratum issuedOpen access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Small bowel carcinomas in celiac or Crohn's disease: distinctive histophenotypic, molecular and histogenetic patterns.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2017
    Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Enrico SolciaDepartment of Pathology, University of Pavia, Fondazione Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS) Policlinico San Matteo, 27100, Pavia, Italy.
Catherine Klersy
Alessandro Vanoli
Federica Grillo
Rachele Manca
Francesca Tava
Ombretta Luinetti
Roberto Fiocca
Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico · ITUniversity of Pavia · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSeveral histochemical studies suggest a role of tumor cell phenotype and related differentiation markers in the prognostic assessment of gastric cancer. Unfortunately, most studies have dealt with single or a few markers and have paid limited attention to their interplay with tumor histological types, which are potentially informative of prognosis.

methodsIn this study, 292 invasive (T1b to T4) gastric cancers with prolonged follow-up and carefully analyzed histotype, inclusive of histotype-based grade, were investigated histochemically with a panel of 14 phenotypic markers known to be expressed in normal gut tissues and gastric cancer.

resultsThree of seven intestinal type markers investigated showed a trend for improved prognosis, one of which, CDX2, was stage independent. Three among gastric and pancreatobiliary duct markers (MUC1, MUC6, and pepsinogen II), predicted more severe prognosis stage independently, as did a combination of eight potentially informative (p < 0.1 at univariable Cox analysis) markers. Cancers with predominantly intestinal phenotype had significantly better prognosis than those with predominantly gastric, mixed, or poorly defined phenotypes; among the latter, those with high lymphocyte response, with favorable outcome, were separated from anaplastic cancers, with ominous prognosis. At multivariable analysis, CDX2 and the eight marker combination proved to be stage- and grade-independent predictors.

conclusionsWhen individually considered, and with the exception of CDX2, the biomarkers investigated gave an appreciable, although moderate, contribution to the prognostic evaluation of gastric cancer. Combined analysis of all potentially informative markers gave more important information, highly additive to both stage and histotype-based grade.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorFollow-Up StudiesGastric MucosaHumansImmunoenzyme TechniquesNeoplasm StagingPhenotypePrognosisStomach NeoplasmsSurvival RateBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID23329390
OpenAlexW1967819659

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.