ArticleCancer biology & therapy2015
Tumor profiling of gastric and esophageal carcinoma reveal different treatment options.
Article in Cancer biology & therapy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploiting the role of O6-methylguanine-DNA-methyltransferase (MGMT) in gastrointestinal cancers.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2025Review
- Article
- TRIP13 Induces Nedaplatin Resistance in Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma by Enhancing Repair of DNA Damage and Inhibiting Apoptosis.BioMed research international · 2022Article
- Long Non-Coding RNA: A Potential Strategy for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Colorectal Cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Review
- Long non-coding RNA RAMS11 promotes metastatic colorectal cancer progression.Nature communications · 2020Article
- Precision medicine in gastric cancer.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2019Review
- The design, analysis and application of mouse clinical trials in oncology drug development.BMC cancer · 2019Article
- Integrated Bioinformatics Analysis Identifies Hub Genes Associated with the Pathogenesis and Prognosis of Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma.BioMed research international · 2019Article
- Molecular Characterization of Gastric Carcinoma: Therapeutic Implications for Biomarkers and Targets.Biomedicines · 2018Review
- High protein and mRNA expression levels of TUBB3 (class III ß-tubulin) are associated with aggressive tumor features in esophageal adenocarcinomas.Oncotarget · 2017Article
- Inhibition of Topoisomerase IIα and Induction of Apoptosis in Gastric Cancer Cells by 19-Triisopropyl AndrographolideAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2017Article
- Beyond HER2: recent advances and future directions in targeted therapies in esophagogastric cancers.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2016Review
- Tumor profiling of co-regulated receptor tyrosine kinase and chemoresistant genes reveal different targeting options for lung and gastroesophageal cancers.American journal of translational research · 2016Article
- Relationships betweenOncoTargets and therapy · 2016Article
- TP53, PIK3CA, FBXW7 and KRAS Mutations in Esophageal Cancer Identified by Targeted Sequencing.Cancer genomics & proteomicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNCCN states that chemotherapies for advanced esophageal and gastric cancers may be used interchangeably. Biomarkers from gastroesophageal cancer patients were interrogated to identify actionable alterations with therapeutic implications.
methods666 gastric and 640 esophageal cancer cases referred to Caris Life Sciences between 2009 thru 2013 were evaluated. Specific testing was performed, which included a combination of sequencing (Sanger, NGS) and protein expression (IHC).
resultsIn the complete cohort (n = 1306), 30 of 45 genes tested harbored mutations; highest rates were seen in TP53 (54%), APC (10%), SMAD4 (5.9%), KRAS (5.9%), and PIK3CA (5.1%). IHC of TOP2A was high in 76% of cases, TOPO1 in 51% and SPARC in 25%; low IHC of ERCC1 was seen in 65%, RRM1 in 62%, TS in 61% and MGMT in 45%, indicating potential benefit from epirubicin, irinotecan, nab-paclitaxel, platinum-based agents, gemcitabine, 5FU/capecitabine and temozolomide, respectively. In the HER2+ cohort (n = 88), 50% of patients demonstrated possible benefit from a combination of trastuzumab with 5FU/capecitabine based on concurrent low TS, 53% with irinotecan (high TOPO1), 63% with cisplatin (low ERCC1) and 55% with gemcitabine (low RRM1). Subgroup analysis by tumor origin demonstrated significant differences in actionable biomarker profiles with HER2 (13% vs. 4.6%), SPARC (34% vs. 15%), TOP2A (86% vs. 67%), and TOPO1 (55% vs. 46%) in esophageal and gastric adenocarcinoma cases respectively (P < 0.05).
conclusionA comprehensive multiplatform biomarker analysis suggested significant biomarker differences between gastric and esophageal cancers. These results can assist in the development of future clinical trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.