Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24944469›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of gastroenterology2014

Colorectal cancer: from prevention to personalized medicine.

Gemma Binefa, Francisco Rodríguez-Moranta, Alex Teule, Manuel Medina-Hayas

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of gastroenterology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 182 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
182citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
13.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

182 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 398 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

122 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Gemma BinefaGemma Binefa, Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Catalan Institute of Oncology, IDIBELL, CIBERESP, Hospitalet de Llobregat, 08908 Barcelona, Spain.
Francisco Rodríguez-MorantaGemma Binefa, Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Catalan Institute of Oncology, IDIBELL, CIBERESP, Hospitalet de Llobregat, 08908 Barcelona, Spain.
Alex TeuleGemma Binefa, Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Catalan Institute of Oncology, IDIBELL, CIBERESP, Hospitalet de Llobregat, 08908 Barcelona, Spain.
Manuel Medina-HayasGemma Binefa, Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Catalan Institute of Oncology, IDIBELL, CIBERESP, Hospitalet de Llobregat, 08908 Barcelona, Spain.
Institut Català d'Oncologia · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a very heterogeneous disease that is caused by the interaction of genetic and environmental factors. CRC develops through a gradual accumulation of genetic and epigenetic changes, leading to the transformation of normal colonic mucosa into invasive cancer. CRC is one of the most prevalent and incident cancers worldwide, as well as one of the most deadly. Approximately 1235108 people are diagnosed annually with CRC, and 609051 die from CRC annually. The World Health Organization estimates an increase of 77% in the number of newly diagnosed cases of CRC and an increase of 80% in deaths from CRC by 2030. The incidence of CRC can benefit from different strategies depending on its stage: health promotion through health education campaigns (when the disease is not yet present), the implementation of screening programs (for detection of the disease in its early stages), and the development of nearly personalized treatments according to both patient characteristics (age, sex) and the cancer itself (gene expression). Although there are different strategies for screening and although the number of such strategies is increasing due to the potential of emerging technologies in molecular marker application, not all strategies meet the criteria required for screening tests in population programs; the three most accepted tests are the fecal occult blood test (FOBT), colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy. FOBT is the most used method for CRC screening worldwide and is also the primary choice in most population-based screening programs in Europe. Due to its non-invasive nature and low cost, it is one of the most accepted techniques by population. CRC is a very heterogeneous disease, and with a few exceptions (APC, p53, KRAS), most of the genes involved in CRC are observed in a small percentage of cases. The design of genetic and epigenetic marker panels that are able to provide maximum coverage in the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia seems a reasonable strategy. In recent years, the use of DNA, RNA and protein markers in different biological samples has been explored as strategies for CRC diagnosis. Although there is not yet sufficient evidence to recommend the analysis of biomarkers such as DNA, RNA or proteins in the blood or stool, it is likely that given the quick progression of technology tools in molecular biology, increasingly sensitive and less expensive, these tools will gradually be employed in clinical practice and will likely be developed in mass.

Indexed as

ColectomyPrecision MedicinePrimary PreventionSecondary PreventionAnimalsAntineoplastic AgentsBiomarkers, TumorChemoradiotherapy, AdjuvantChemotherapy, AdjuvantColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsFecesGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenetic TestingHumansMass ScreeningAntineoplastic AgentsBiomarkers, TumorBiological markersColorectal cancerDrug therapyMass screeningPrevention

Identifiers

PMID24944469
PMCPMC4051918
OpenAlexW2065434214

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.