Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24700189›Full record

ReviewDer Urologe. Ausg. A2014

[Prognostic and predictive molecular markers for urologic cancers].

A Hartmann, T Schlomm, S Bertz, J Heinzelmann, S Hölters, R Simon, R Stoehr, K Junker

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. 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

8 authors.

A HartmannInstitut für Pathologie, Universität Erlangen, Erlangen, Deutschland.
T Schlomm
S Bertz
J Heinzelmann
S Hölters
R Simon
R Stoehr
K Junker

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Molecular prognostic factors and genetic alterations as predictive markers for cancer-specific targeted therapies are used today in the clinic for many malignancies. In recent years, many molecular markers for urogenital cancers have also been identified. However, these markers are not clinically used yet. In prostate cancer, novel next-generation sequencing methods revealed a detailed picture of the molecular changes. There is growing evidence that a combination of classical histopathological and validated molecular markers could lead to a more precise estimation of prognosis, thus, resulting in an increasing number of patients with active surveillance as a possible treatment option. In patients with urothelial carcinoma, histopathological factors but also the proliferation of the tumor, mutations in oncogenes leading to an increasing proliferation rate and changes in genes responsible for invasion and metastasis are important. In addition, gene expression profiles which could distinguish aggressive tumors with high risk of metastasis from nonmetastasizing tumors have been recently identified. In the future, this could potentially allow better selection of patients needing systemic perioperative treatment. In renal cell carcinoma, many molecular markers that are associated with metastasis and survival have been identified. Some of these markers were also validated as independent prognostic markers. Selection of patients with primarily organ-confined tumors and increased risk of metastasis for adjuvant systemic therapy could be clinically relevant in the future.

Indexed as

AdultAgedBiomarkers, TumorCarcinoma, Renal CellCarcinoma, Transitional CellGenetic Association StudiesHumansKidneyKidney NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesMolecular Sequence DataNeoplasm GradingPolymorphism, Single NucleotidePredictive Value of TestsBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

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.