Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24588669›Full record

ReviewThe British journal of radiology2014

Defining normoxia, physoxia and hypoxia in tumours-implications for treatment response.

S R McKeown

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The British journal of radiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 573 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
573citing papers in PubMed
6.3field-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

573 citing papers in PubMed, 1,031 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. How telomere attrition protects against cancer.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

513 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

S R McKeownBiomedical Sciences Research Institute, University of Ulster, Coleraine, Northern Ireland, UK.
University of Ulster · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tumour hypoxia is increasingly recognized as a major deleterious factor in cancer therapies, as it compromises treatment and drives malignant progression. This review seeks to clarify the oxygen levels that are pertinent to this issue. It is argued that normoxia (20% oxygen) is an extremely poor comparator for "physoxia", i.e. the much lower levels of oxygen universally found in normal tissues, which averages about 5% oxygen, and ranges from about 3% to 7.4%. Importantly, it should be recognized that the median oxygenation in untreated tumours is significantly much lower, falling between approximately 0.3% and 4.2% oxygen, with most tumours exhibiting median oxygen levels <2%. This is partially dependent on the tissue of origin, and it is notable that many prostate and pancreatic tumours are profoundly hypoxic. In addition, therapy can induce even further, often unrecognized, changes in tumour oxygenation that may vary longitudinally, increasing or decreasing during treatment in ways that are not always predictable. Studies that fail to take cognizance of the actual physiological levels of oxygen in tissues (approximately 5%) and tumours (approximately 1%) may fail to identify the real circumstances driving tumour response to treatment and/or malignant progression. This can be of particular importance in genetic studies in vitro when comparison to human tumours is required.

Indexed as

AnimalsCell HypoxiaDisease ProgressionHumansHypoxiaMaleNeoplasmsOxygenOxygen

Identifiers

PMID24588669
PMCPMC4064601
OpenAlexW2018722597

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.