Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23509313›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology2013

Three-gene immunohistochemical panel adds to clinical staging algorithms to predict prognosis for patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Chin-Ann J Ong, Joel Shapiro, Katie S Nason, Jon M Davison, Xinxue Liu, Caryn Ross-Innes, Maria O'Donovan, Winand N M Dinjens, Katharina Biermann, Nicholas Shannon and 6 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
8.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

46 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 75 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Role of sirtuins in esophageal cancer: Current status and future prospects.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2022
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. TRIM44 Promotes Endometrial Carcinoma Progression by Activating the FRS2 Signalling Pathway.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. PADI3 induces cell cycle arrestCancer biology & medicine · 2019
    Article
  20. Radiation research · 2019
    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

16 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Chin-Ann J OngHutchison/MRC Research Centre, Cambridge, UK.
Joel Shapiro
Katie S Nason
Jon M Davison
Xinxue Liu
Caryn Ross-Innes
Maria O'Donovan
Winand N M Dinjens
Katharina Biermann
Nicholas Shannon
Susannah Worster
Laura K E Schulz
James D Luketich
Bas P L Wijnhoven
Richard H Hardwick
Rebecca C Fitzgerald
Addenbrooke's Hospital · GBErasmus MC · NL

Funding

Barriers to Early Detection of Esophageal AdenocarcinomaK07CA151613 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI NASON, KATIE S · 2011 to 2015
$818k
Department of Health NIHR-RP-02-12-011Medical Research Council MC-A040-5PP10Medical Research Council MC_U105365007NCI NIH HHS K07 CA151613NCI NIH HHS K07CA151613
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeEsophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) is a highly aggressive disease with poor long-term survival. Despite growing knowledge of its biology, no molecular biomarkers are currently used in routine clinical practice to determine prognosis or aid clinical decision making. Hence, this study set out to identify and validate a small, clinically applicable immunohistochemistry (IHC) panel for prognostication in patients with EAC. PATIENTS AND

methodsWe recently identified eight molecular prognostic biomarkers using two different genomic platforms. IHC scores of these biomarkers from a UK multicenter cohort (N = 374) were used in univariate Cox regression analysis to determine the smallest biomarker panel with the greatest prognostic power with potential therapeutic relevance. This new panel was validated in two independent cohorts of patients with EAC who had undergone curative esophagectomy from the United States and Europe (N = 666).

resultsThree of the eight previously identified prognostic molecular biomarkers (epidermal growth factor receptor [EGFR], tripartite motif-containing 44 [TRIM44], and sirtuin 2 [SIRT2]) had the strongest correlation with long-term survival in patients with EAC. Applying these three biomarkers as an IHC panel to the validation cohort segregated patients into two different prognostic groups (P < .01). Adjusting for known survival covariates, including clinical staging criteria, the IHC panel remained an independent predictor, with incremental adverse overall survival (OS) for each positive biomarker (hazard ratio, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.40 per biomarker; P = .02).

conclusionWe identified and validated a clinically applicable IHC biomarker panel, consisting of EGFR, TRIM44, and SIRT2, that is independently associated with OS and provides additional prognostic information to current survival predictors such as stage.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsAdenocarcinomaAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBiomarkers, TumorCarrier ProteinsCohort StudiesErbB ReceptorsEsophageal NeoplasmsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansImmunoenzyme TechniquesIntracellular Signaling Peptides and ProteinsMaleBiomarkers, TumorCarrier ProteinsEGFR protein, humanErbB ReceptorsIntracellular Signaling Peptides and ProteinsSIRT2 protein, humanSirtuin 2TRIM44 protein, humanTripartite Motif Proteins

Identifiers

PMID23509313
PMCPMC3625712
OpenAlexW2130897032

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.