Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24983372›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2014

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and prostaglandin-endoperoxide synthase 2 (PTGS2) are prognostic biomarkers for patients with resected colorectal cancer liver metastases.

J A C M Goos, A C Hiemstra, V M H Coupé, B Diosdado, W Kooijman, P M Delis-Van Diemen, C Karga, J A M Beliën, C W Menke-van der Houven van Oordt, A A Geldof and 5 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of cancer, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Probing the Antitumor Mechanism ofBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. 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

15 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

J A C M Goos1] Department of Pathology, VU University Medical Center, CCA 1.08, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands [2] Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, VU University Medical Center, CCA 1.08, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
A C HiemstraDepartment of Pathology, VU University Medical Center, CCA 1.08, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
V M H CoupéDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Center, CCA 1.08, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
B DiosdadoDepartment of Pathology, VU University Medical Center, CCA 1.08, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
W KooijmanDepartment of Pathology, VU University Medical Center, CCA 1.08, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
P M Delis-Van DiemenDepartment of Pathology, VU University Medical Center, CCA 1.08, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
C KargaDepartment of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, VU University Medical Center, CCA 1.08, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
J A M BeliënDepartment of Pathology, VU University Medical Center, CCA 1.08, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
C W Menke-van der Houven van OordtDepartment of Medical Oncology, VU University Medical Center, CCA 1.08, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
A A GeldofDepartment of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, VU University Medical Center, CCA 1.08, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
G A MeijerDepartment of Pathology, VU University Medical Center, CCA 1.08, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
O S HoekstraDepartment of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, VU University Medical Center, CCA 1.08, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
R J A FijnemanDepartment of Pathology, VU University Medical Center, CCA 1.08, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
DeCoDe PET group
DeCoDe PET group
Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResection of colorectal cancer liver metastasis (CRCLM) with curative intent has long-term benefit in ~40% of cases. Prognostic biomarkers are needed to improve clinical management and reduce futile surgeries. Expression of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and prostaglandin-endoperoxide synthase 2 (PTGS2; also known as cyclooxygenase-2) has been associated with carcinogenesis and survival. We investigated the prognostic value of EGFR and PTGS2 expression in patients with resected CRCLM.

methodsFormalin-fixed paraffin-embedded CRCLM tissue and corresponding primary tumour specimens from a multi-institutional cohort of patients who underwent liver resection between 1990 and 2010 were incorporated into tissue microarrays (TMAs). TMAs were stained for EGFR and PTGS2 by immunohistochemistry. The hazard rate ratio (HRR) for the association between expression in CRCLM and overall survival was calculated using a 500-fold cross-validation procedure.

resultsEGFR and PTGS2 expression could be evaluated in 323 and 351 patients, respectively. EGFR expression in CRCLM was associated with poor prognosis (HRR 1.54; P<0.01) with a cross-validated HRR of 1.47 (P=0.03). PTGS2 expression was also associated with poor prognosis (HRR 1.60; P<0.01) with a cross-validated HRR of 1.63 (P<0.01). Expression of EGFR and PTGS2 remained prognostic after multivariate analysis with standard clinicopathological variables (cross-validated HRR 1.51; P=0.02 and cross-validated HRR 1.59; P=0.01, respectively). Stratification for the commonly applied systemic therapy regimens demonstrated prognostic value for EGFR and PTGS2 only in the subgroup of patients who were not treated with systemic therapy (HRR 1.78; P<0.01 and HRR 1.64; P=0.04, respectively), with worst prognosis when both EGFR and PTGS2 were highly expressed (HRR 3.08; P<0.01). Expression of PTGS2 in CRCLM was correlated to expression in patient-matched primary tumours (P=0.02, 69.2% concordance).

conclusionsEGFR and PTGS2 expressions are prognostic molecular biomarkers with added value to standard clinicopathological variables for patients with resectable CRCLM.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overBiomarkers, TumorColorectal NeoplasmsCyclooxygenase 2ErbB ReceptorsFemaleHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateLiver NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedYoung AdultBiomarkers, TumorCyclooxygenase 2EGFR protein, humanErbB ReceptorsPTGS2 protein, human

Identifiers

PMID24983372
PMCPMC4134500
OpenAlexW2035250258

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.