Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25701352›Full record

ReviewLangenbeck's archives of surgery2015

Personalized treatment for colorectal cancer: novel developments and putative therapeutic strategies.

Jamil Akkad, Sylvia Bochum, Uwe M Martens

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Overexpression of LARP1 predicts poor prognosis of colorectal cancer and is expected to be a potential therapeutic target.Tumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine · 2016
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. 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

3 authors.

Jamil AkkadCancer Center Heilbronn-Franken, SLK Kliniken Heilbronn GmbH, Heilbronn, Germany.
Sylvia Bochum
Uwe M Martens

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer diagnosed worldwide and continues to be a major healthcare concern. Molecular heterogeneity of CRC is believed to be one of the main factors responsible for the considerable variability in treatment response. With the recent development of powerful genomic technologies, novel insights in tumor biology of CRC have now been provided, facilitating the recognition of new molecular subtypes with prognostic and predictive implications. PURPOSE: The purpose of this review article is to summarize current knowledge about genomic, epigenomic, and proteomic characteristics of CRC, as well as their implications for biomarker identification and individualized targeted therapy.

conclusionSupplementing the findings from several previous studies, the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) project recently finalized the systematic characterization of CRC resulting in the first tumor dataset with complete molecular measurements at DNA, RNA, and protein levels. The challenge now is to translate these findings into a robust and reproducible CRC classification system linking molecular features of the tumor to precision medicine.

Indexed as

Angiogenesis InhibitorsAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedAntineoplastic AgentsBiomarkers, TumorClinical Trials, Phase II as TopicColorectal NeoplasmsFemaleForecastingGene Expression Regulation, NeoplasticHumansIncidenceMaleMolecular Targeted TherapyPrecision MedicinePrognosisProteomicsAngiogenesis InhibitorsAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedAntineoplastic AgentsBiomarkers, 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.