ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2014
Colonoscopy as a tool for evaluating colorectal tumor development in a mouse model.
Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Identifying the tumor location-associated candidate genes in development of new drugs for colorectal cancer using machine-learning-based approach.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2022Article
- Signal regulatory protein alpha blockade potentiates tumoricidal effects of macrophages on gastroenterological neoplastic cells in syngeneic immunocompetent mice.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2018Article
- Intermittent Dosing with Sulindac Provides Effective Colorectal Cancer Chemoprevention in the Azoxymethane-Treated Mouse Model.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2017Article
- Assessment of murine colorectal cancer by micro-ultrasound using three dimensional reconstruction and non-linear contrast imaging.Molecular therapy. Methods & clinical development · 2016Article
- Novel isolated cecal pouch model for endoscopic observation in rats.World journal of gastroenterology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeA sporadic colon cancer mouse model with conditional mutations in adenomatous polyposis coli (Apc) is biologically relevant for human colorectal cancer (CRC). This study aimed to determine the utility and limitations of colonoscopy for evaluating colon tumors in this mouse model.
methodsWe compared the estimates of location, size, and miss rate of tumors detected during colonoscopy with those determined by necropsy. Sixty-six CPC-Apc mice originating from Apc (F/wt) mice harbor a Cdx2-Cre transgene in which colorectal tumorigenesis was driven by Apc allelic loss. The sensitivity and specificity of colonoscopy for detecting tumors in a mouse CRC model were investigated.
resultsA strong positive correlation was found between tumor location as measured by colonoscopy and the location determined by necropsy (p < 0.001). A total of 120 tumors were graded during colonoscopy (grades 1-5: 0, 8, 20, 27, and 65 lesions, respectively), and a strong positive correlation was found between the tumor grade determined by colonoscopy and size measured by necropsy (grades 2-5: 2.08, 2.98, 4.02, and 5.09 mm, respectively; p < 0.005). Although the miss rate was 47.1 %, most of the missed tumors (96 %) were in close proximity (within 5 mm) of another tumor.
conclusionsA colonoscopic method for the reliable measurement of colorectal tumors in vivo has been established. The application of this technique to mouse models of colon carcinogenesis will provide a better understanding of the dynamics of tumor growth.
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.