ReviewDer Pathologe2015
[Molecular pathology of colorectal cancer].
Review in Der Pathologe, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Pathological diagnostics of rectal cancer : New aspects and recommendations of the updated S3 guidelines].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- [Colon polyps-nomenclature, histology, and molecular pathology].Pathologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Pathology.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2021Review
- Five-year follow-up study of stage I-IV rectal cancer including EGFR immunoexpression and p21 immunoactivity.Przeglad gastroenterologiczny · 2021Article
- P21 is not a prognostic marker for rectal cancer - five-year follow up study of rectal cancer in stages I-IV.Contemporary oncology (Poznan, Poland) · 2020Article
- Clinical Aspects of Microsatellite Instability Testing in Colorectal Cancer.Advanced biomedical research · 2018Review
- The effect of the primary tumor location on the survival of colorectal cancer patients after radical surgery.International journal of medical sciences · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years, several predictive and prognostic biomarkers have been established in colorectal cancer (CRC). The RAS-mutation status is widely applied in the daily routine diagnostic as predictive biomarker for treatment with EGFR-inhibitors. A BRAF- mutation has no predictive value in this context. The detection of high-grade microsatellite instability (MSI-H) is a predictive biomarker for response to 5-Fluoruracil-monotherapy. Prognostic biomarkers in CRC are the MSI-status and the mutational status of BRAF. According to the current WHO classification poorly and undifferentiated CRC and MSI-associated special morphological subtypes are molecular graded depending on their MSI-status. The detection of a BRAF-mutation in the context of microsatellite stability (MSS) is associated with a very poor prognosis and thus represents the most aggressive molecular subtype of CRC. In patients with positive Bethesda criteria a stepwise immunohistochemical and molecular diagnostic scheme is proposed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25777075What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.