Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26697199›Full record

ReviewJournal of gastrointestinal oncology2015

BRAF mutant colorectal cancer as a distinct subset of colorectal cancer: clinical characteristics, clinical behavior, and response to targeted therapies.

Callisia N Clarke, E Scott Kopetz

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of gastrointestinal oncology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 126 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
126citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

126 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Encorafenib Plus Cetuximab as a New Standard of Care for Previously TreatedJournal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2021
    Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Binimetinib, Encorafenib, and Cetuximab Triplet Therapy for Patients WithJournal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2019
    Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. BRAFiScience · 2025
    Article

66 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.

Callisia N Clarke1 Department of Surgical Oncology, 2 Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
E Scott Kopetz1 Department of Surgical Oncology, 2 Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite new and more effective cytotoxic chemotherapy, limitations to conventional agents have been reached in a subset of patients with advanced colorectal cancer (CRC). The identification of novel prognostic and predictive biomarkers to guide individualized treatment plans is critical to overcoming therapeutic resistance. Mutation of the BRAF proto-oncogene is linked to a variety of cancers and is increasingly being used as a prognostic tool and therapeutic target. This paper is a comprehensive review of the literature that summarizes the clinical, pathologic, and molecular features of BRAF mutated CRC that support the hypothesis that BRAF mutant cancers represent a distinct subset of CRC with its own clinical implications with regard to prognosis, treatments and emerging therapeutic strategies.

Indexed as

BRAFColorectal cancer (CRC)prognostic biomarkertargeted therapy

Identifiers

PMID26697199
PMCPMC4671844

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.