Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26013439›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2015

The prognostic factors and multiple biomarkers in young patients with colorectal cancer.

Mo-Jin Wang, Jie Ping, Yuan Li, Gunnar Adell, Gunnar Arbman, Bjorn Nodin, Wen-Jian Meng, Hong Zhang, Yong-Yang Yu, Cun Wang and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. The Role of WRAP53 in Cell Homeostasis and Carcinogenesis Onset.Current issues in molecular biology · 2022
    Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

13 authors.

Mo-Jin Wang1] Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Institute of Digestive Surgery and State key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan 610041, China [2] Department of Oncology, and Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Linköping University, Linköping, SE 58183, Sweden.
Jie PingDepartment of Oncology, and Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Linköping University, Linköping, SE 58183, Sweden.
Yuan LiDepartment of Paediatric Surgery, Institute of Digestive Surgery and State key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan 610041, China.
Gunnar AdellDepartment of Oncology, and Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Linköping University, Linköping, SE 58183, Sweden.
Gunnar ArbmanDepartment of Surgery, and Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Linköping University, Norrköping, SE 60174, Sweden.
Bjorn NodinDepartment of pathology, Lund University, Lund, SE 22100, Sweden.
Wen-Jian Meng1] Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Institute of Digestive Surgery and State key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan 610041, China [2] Department of Oncology, and Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Linköping University, Linköping, SE 58183, Sweden.
Hong ZhangSchool of Medicine, Örebro University, Örebro, SE 70182, Sweden.
Yong-Yang YuDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Institute of Digestive Surgery and State key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan 610041, China.
Cun WangDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Institute of Digestive Surgery and State key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan 610041, China.
Lie YangDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Institute of Digestive Surgery and State key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan 610041, China.
Zong-Guang ZhouDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Institute of Digestive Surgery and State key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan 610041, China.
Xiao-Feng Sun1] Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Institute of Digestive Surgery and State key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan 610041, China [2] Department of Oncology, and Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Linköping University, Linköping, SE 58183, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) in young patients (≤ 50 years of age) appears to be increasing. However, their clinicopathological characteristics and survival are controversial. Likewise, the biomarkers are unclear. We used the West China (2008-2013, China), Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program (1973-2011, United States) and Linköping Cancer (1972-2009, Sweden) databases to analyse clinicopathological characteristics, survival and multiple biomarkers of young CRC patients. A total of 509,934 CRC patients were included from the three databases. The young CRC patients tended to have more distal location tumours, fewer tumour numbers, later stage, more mucinous carcinoma and poorer differentiation. The cancer-specific survival (CSS) of young patients was significantly better. The PRL (HR = 12.341, 95% CI = 1.615-94.276, P = 0.010), RBM3 (HR = 0.093, 95% CI = 0.012-0.712, P = 0.018), Wrap53 (HR = 1.952, 95% CI = 0.452-6.342, P = 0.031), p53 (HR = 5.549, 95% CI = 1.176-26.178, P = 0.045) and DNA status (HR = 17.602, 95% CI = 2.551-121.448, P = 0.001) were associated with CSS of the young patients. In conclusion, this study suggests that young CRC patients present advanced tumours and more malignant pathological features, while they have a better prognosis. The PRL, RBM3, Wrap53, p53 and DNA status are potential prognostic biomarkers for the young CRC patients.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAge FactorsBiomarkers, TumorColorectal NeoplasmsDatabases, FactualDemographyDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleHumansIncidenceKaplan-Meier EstimateMaleMiddle AgedMolecular ChaperonesNeoplasm StagingBiomarkers, TumorMolecular ChaperonesProlactinRBM3 protein, humanRNA-Binding ProteinsTelomeraseTumor Suppressor Protein p53WRAP53 protein, human

Identifiers

PMID26013439
PMCPMC4445043

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.