ArticleScientific reports2016
Comprehensive molecular portrait using next generation sequencing of resected intestinal-type gastric cancer patients dichotomized according to prognosis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Treatment Response Predictors of Neoadjuvant Therapy for Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer: Current Status and Future Perspectives.Biomedicines · 2022Review
- Differences in Somatic Mutation Profiles between Korean Gastric Cancer and Gastric Adenoma Patients.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Oncogenic mechanism-based pharmaceutical validation of therapeutics targeting MET receptor tyrosine kinase.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2021Review
- Clinical characteristics and prognostic significance of TCGA and ACRG classification in gastric cancer among the Chinese population.Molecular medicine reports · 2020Article
- Clinical relevance of somatic mutations in main driver genes detected in gastric cancer patients by next-generation DNA sequencing.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Genetic alterations analysis in prognostic stratified groups identified TP53 and ARID1A as poor clinical performance markers in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Gastric Cancer Cell Lines Have DifferentCanadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2018Article
- Next generation sequencing-based emerging trends in molecular biology of gastric cancer.American journal of cancer research · 2018Review
- Review
- Profiling cancer-associated genetic alterations and molecular classification of cancer in Korean gastric cancer patients.Oncotarget · 2017Article
- Molecular Testing for Gastrointestinal Cancer.Journal of pathology and translational medicine · 2017Review
- Molecular classification of esophagogastric junction carcinoma correlated with prognosis.OncoTargets and therapy · 2017Article
- Prognostic Biomarkers in Early-stage Gastric Adenocarcinoma Treated With Adjuvant Chemoradiotherapy.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
16 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this study, we evaluated whether the presence of genetic alterations detected by next generation sequencing may define outcome in a prognostically-selected and histology-restricted population of resected gastric cancer (RGC). Intestinal type RGC samples from 34 patients, including 21 best and 13 worst prognostic performers, were studied. Mutations in 50 cancer-associated genes were evaluated. A significant difference between good and poor prognosis was found according to clinico-pathologic factors. The most commonly mutated genes in the whole population were PIK3CA (29.4%), KRAS (26.5%), TP53 (26.5%) MET (8.8%), SMAD4 (8.8%) and STK11 (8.8%). Multiple gene mutations were found in 14/21 (67%) patients with good prognosis, and 3/13 (23%) in the poor prognosis group. A single gene alteration was found in 5/21 (24%) good and 6/13 (46%) poor prognosis patients. No mutation was found in 2/21 (9.5%) and 4/13 (31%) of these groups, respectively. In the overall series, ß-catenin expression was the highest (82.4%), followed by E-Cadherin (76.5%) and FHIT (52.9%). The good prognosis group was characterized by a high mutation rate and microsatellite instability. Our proof-of-principle study demonstrates the feasibility of a molecular profiling approach with the aim to identify potentially druggable pathways and drive the development of customized therapies for RGC.
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.