Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26810066›Full record

ArticleTumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine2016

Prognostic impact and potential interaction of EGFR and c-Met in the progression of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

Haixing Wang, Dongxian Jiang, Qi Song, Chen Xu, Yuan Shi, Xiaojing Li, Jie Huang, Yifan Xu, Akesu Sujie, Haiying Zeng and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Tumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. MET overexpression and intratumor heterogeneity in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.Brazilian journal of medical and biological research = Revista brasileira de pesquisas medicas e biologica · 2021
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Haixing WangDepartment of Pathology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, People's Republic of China.
Dongxian JiangDepartment of Pathology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, People's Republic of China.
Qi SongDepartment of Pathology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, People's Republic of China.
Chen XuDepartment of Pathology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, People's Republic of China.
Yuan ShiDepartment of Pathology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, People's Republic of China.
Xiaojing LiDepartment of Pathology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, People's Republic of China.
Jie HuangDepartment of Pathology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, People's Republic of China.
Yifan XuDepartment of Pathology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, People's Republic of China.
Akesu SujieDepartment of Pathology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, People's Republic of China.
Haiying ZengDepartment of Pathology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, People's Republic of China.
Yunshi ZhongEndoscopic Center, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, People's Republic of China.
Lijie TanDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, People's Republic of China. tan.lijie@zs-hospital.sh.cn.
Yingyong HouDepartment of Pathology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, People's Republic of China. houyingyong@hotmail.com.
Fudan University · CNSun Yat-sen University · CNZhongshan Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study is to examine EGFR and c-Met variation in precancerous lesion, early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), and advanced ESCC and to explore their prognostic significance. EGFR and c-Met were detected by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Of 158 endoscopy resection (ER) specimens, c-Met high expression and FISH positive were 44.9 and 12.6 %, respectively. EGFR high expression and FISH positive were 2.5 and 19.6 %, respectively. Of 84 surgical specimens, c-Met high expression and FISH positive were 50 and 8.3 %, respectively. EGFR high expression and FISH positive were 7.1 and 28.5 %, respectively. A significant correlation was observed between c-Met and EGFR FISH positive both in ER (P < 0.001) and surgical specimens (P = 0.029). Patients with EGFR high expression had poorer disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) (P = 0.031 and P = 0.013) in c-Met high-expression group but not in c-Met low-expression group (P = 0.301 and P = 0.439). C-Met FISH positive did not represent a statistically significant adverse prognosis until 24 months later (P = 0.027 and 0.048). EGFR and c-Met might be involved in the tumorigenesis and development of ESCC. EGFR high expression has different prognostic significance in patients with differing c-Met expression status. C-Met FISH positive represent delayed prognostic factor.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorCarcinoma, Squamous CellDisease ProgressionErbB ReceptorsEsophageal NeoplasmsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGene Expression Regulation, NeoplasticHumansImmunoenzyme TechniquesIn Situ HybridizationMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm InvasivenessNeoplasm StagingPrognosisBiomarkers, TumorEGFR protein, humanErbB ReceptorsMET protein, humanProto-Oncogene Proteins c-metEarly and advanced ESCCEGFR and c-MetPotential interactionPrecancerous lesionPrognosis

Identifiers

PMID26810066
OpenAlexW2257503101

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.