Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25806371›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in medicine2015

Molecular and pathogenetic aspects of tumor budding in colorectal cancer.

Heather Dawson, Alessandro Lugli

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
62citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

62 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

2 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

2 authors.

Heather DawsonClinical Pathology Division, Institute of Pathology, University of Bern , Bern , Switzerland ; Translational Research Unit, Institute of Pathology, University of Bern , Bern , Switzerland.
Alessandro LugliClinical Pathology Division, Institute of Pathology, University of Bern , Bern , Switzerland ; Translational Research Unit, Institute of Pathology, University of Bern , Bern , Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, tumor budding in colorectal cancer has gained much attention as an indicator of lymph node metastasis, distant metastatic disease, local recurrence, worse overall and disease-free survival, and as an independent prognostic factor. Tumor buds, defined as the presence of single tumor cells or small clusters of up to five tumor cells at the peritumoral invasive front (peritumoral buds) or within the main tumor body (intratumoral buds), are thought to represent the morphological correlate of cancer cells having undergone epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT), an important mechanism for the progression of epithelial cancers. In contrast to their undisputed prognostic power and potential to influence clinical management, our current understanding of the biological background of tumor buds is less established. Most studies examining tumor buds have attempted to recapitulate findings of mechanistic EMT studies using immunohistochemical markers. The aim of this review is to provide a comprehensive summary of studies examining protein expression profiles of tumor buds and to illustrate the molecular pathways and crosstalk involved in their formation and maintenance.

Indexed as

colorectal cancerEMTimmunohistochemistrytumor buddingtumor microenvironment

Identifiers

PMID25806371
PMCPMC4354406

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.