Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25634752›Full record

ArticleThe American journal of surgical pathology2015

Smad4 loss in esophageal adenocarcinoma is associated with an increased propensity for disease recurrence and poor survival.

Aatur D Singhi, Tyler J Foxwell, Katie Nason, Kristi L Cressman, Kevin M McGrath, Weijing Sun, Nathan Bahary, Herbert J Zeh, Ryan M Levy, James D Luketich and 1 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The American journal of surgical pathology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Next-Generation Sequencing of 487 Esophageal Adenocarcinomas Reveals Independently Prognostic Genomic Driver Alterations and Pathways.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2021
    Article
  16. SMAD4 mutation correlates with poor prognosis in non-small cell lung cancer.Laboratory investigation; a journal of technical methods and pathology · 2021
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Comprehensive Analysis of the Expression of TGF-Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2021
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Drivers of Esophageal Adenocarcinoma and Opportunities for Cancer Interception.Cellular and molecular gastroenterology and hepatology · 2021
    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

11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Aatur D SinghiDepartments of *Pathology †Surgery ‡Medicine, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA.
Tyler J Foxwell
Katie Nason
Kristi L Cressman
Kevin M McGrath
Weijing Sun
Nathan Bahary
Herbert J Zeh
Ryan M Levy
James D Luketich
Jon M Davison
University of Pittsburgh Medical Center · US

Funding

COBRE Center for Cancer Research DevelopmentP20GM103421 · NIGMS · RHODE ISLAND HOSPITAL · PI RAMRATNAM, BHARAT · 2012 to 2013
$4.5M
Barriers to Early Detection of Esophageal AdenocarcinomaK07CA151613 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI NASON, KATIE S · 2011 to 2015
$818k
NCI NIH HHS K07 CA151613NIGMS NIH HHS P20GM103421
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Previously regarded as a rare neoplasm, the incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma has risen rapidly in recent decades. It is often discovered late in the disease process and has a dismal prognosis. Current prognostic markers including clinical, radiographic, and histopathologic findings have limited utility and do not consider the biology of this deadly disease. Genome-wide analyses have identified SMAD4 inactivation in a subset of tumors. Although Smad4 has been extensively studied in other gastrointestinal malignancies, its role in esophageal adenocarcinoma remains to be defined. Herein, we show, in a large cohort of esophageal adenocarcinomas, Smad4 loss by immunohistochemistry in 21 of 205 (10%) tumors and that Smad4 loss correlated with increased postoperative recurrence (P=0.040). Further, patients whose tumors lacked Smad4 had shorter time to recurrence (TTR) (P=0.007) and poor overall survival (OS) (P=0.011). The median TTR and OS of patients with Smad4-negative tumors was 13 and 16 months, respectively, as compared with 23 and 22 months, respectively, among patients with Smad4-positive tumors. In multivariate analyses, Smad4 loss was a prognostic factor for both TTR and OS, independent of histologic grade, lymphovascular invasion, perineural invasion, tumor stage, and lymph node status. Considering Smad4 loss correlated with postoperative locoregional and/or distant metastases, Smad4 was also assessed in a separate cohort of 5 locoregional recurrences and 43 metastatic esophageal adenocarcinomas. In contrast to primary tumors, a higher prevalence of Smad4 loss was observed in metastatic disease (44% vs. 10%). In summary, loss of Smad4 protein expression is an independent prognostic factor for TTR and OS that correlates with increased propensity for disease recurrence and poor survival in patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma after surgical resection.

Indexed as

Neoplasm Recurrence, LocalAdenocarcinomaAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBiomarkers, TumorChi-Square DistributionDisease-Free SurvivalDown-RegulationEsophageal NeoplasmsFemaleHumansImmunohistochemistryKaplan-Meier EstimateMaleMiddle AgedBiomarkers, TumorSmad4 ProteinSMAD4 protein, human

Identifiers

PMID25634752
PMCPMC4374440
OpenAlexW2315870542

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.