Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24396496›Full record

ReviewJournal of Cancer2014

Current approaches and challenges for monitoring treatment response in colon and rectal cancer.

Elizabeth McKeown, Daniel W Nelson, Eric K Johnson, Justin A Maykel, Alexander Stojadinovic, Aviram Nissan, Itzhak Avital, Björn Ldm Brücher, Scott R Steele

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of Cancer, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Clinicopathological significance and potential drug target of O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase in colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis.Tumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine · 2015
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Nanomedicines in the treatment of colon cancer: a focus on metallodrugs.Drug delivery and translational research · 2022
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. Observational
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

9 authors.

Elizabeth McKeown1. Department of Surgery, Swedish Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA.
Daniel W Nelson2. Department of Surgery, Madigan Army Center, Tacoma, WA, USA.
Eric K Johnson2. Department of Surgery, Madigan Army Center, Tacoma, WA, USA.
Justin A Maykel3. Division of Colorectal Surgery, UMass Medical Center, Worcester, MA, USA.
Alexander Stojadinovic4. Department of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Aviram Nissan5. Department of Surgery, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel.
Itzhak Avital6. Bon Secours Cancer Institute, Richmond, VA, USA.
Björn Ldm Brücher6. Bon Secours Cancer Institute, Richmond, VA, USA.
Scott R Steele2. Department of Surgery, Madigan Army Center, Tacoma, WA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionWith the advent of multidisciplinary and multimodality approaches to the management of colorectal cancer patients, there is an increasing need to define how we monitor response to novel therapies in these patients. Several factors ranging from the type of therapy used to the intrinsic biology of the tumor play a role in tumor response. All of these can aid in determining the ideal course of treatment, and may fluctuate over time, pending down-staging or progression of disease. Therefore, monitoring how disease responds to therapy requires standardization in order to ultimately optimize patient outcomes. Unfortunately, how best to do this remains a topic of debate among oncologists, pathologists, and colorectal surgeons. There may not be one single best approach. The goal of the present article is to shed some light on current approaches and challenges to monitoring treatment response for colorectal cancer.

methodsA literature search was conducted utilizing PubMed and the OVID library. Key-word combinations included colorectal cancer metastases, neoadjuvant therapy, rectal cancer, imaging modalities, CEA, down-staging, tumor response, and biomarkers. Directed searches of the embedded references from the primary articles were also performed in selected circumstances.

resultsPathologic examination of the post-treatment surgical specimen is the gold standard for monitoring response to therapy. Endoscopy is useful for evaluating local recurrence, but not in assessing tumor response outside of the limited information gained by direct examination of intra-lumenal lesions. Imaging is used to monitor tumors throughout the body for response, with CT, PET, and MRI employed in different circumstances. Overall, each has been validated in the monitoring of patients with colorectal cancer and residual tumors.

conclusionAlthough there is no imaging or serum test to precisely correlate with a tumor's response to chemo- or radiation therapy, these modalities, when used in combination, can aid in allowing clinicians to adjust medical therapy, pursue operative intervention, or (in select cases) identify complete responders. Improvements are needed, however, as advances across multiple modalities could allow appropriate selection of patients for a close surveillance regimen in the absence of operative intervention.

Indexed as

CEAcolorectal cancerCTdown-stagingERUSimaging modalitiesMRINeoadjuvant therapyPETtreatment response

Identifiers

PMID24396496
PMCPMC3881219

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.