Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26963001›Full record

ArticleClinical and translational gastroenterology2016

Tracking the Correlation Between CpG Island Methylator Phenotype and Other Molecular Features and Clinicopathological Features in Human Colorectal Cancers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Liang Zong, Masanobu Abe, Jiafu Ji, Wei-Guo Zhu, Duonan Yu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and translational gastroenterology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Cancers · 2020
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Genome-wide Discovery and Identification of a Novel miRNA Signature for Recurrence Prediction in Stage II and III Colorectal Cancer.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2018
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

5 authors.

Liang ZongDivision of Epigenomics, National Cancer Center Research Institute, Tokyo, Japan.
Masanobu AbeDivision for Health Service Promotion, University of Tokyo Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Jiafu JiKey Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Beijing, China.
Wei-Guo ZhuKey Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Peking University Health Science Center, Beijing, China.
Duonan YuNon-coding RNA Center, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe controversy of CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP) in colorectal cancers (CRCs) persists, despite many studies that have been conducted on its correlation with molecular and clinicopathological features. To drive a more precise estimate of the strength of this postulated relationship, a meta-analysis was performed.

methodsA comprehensive search for studies reporting molecular and clinicopathological features of CRCs stratified by CIMP was performed within the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. CIMP was defined by either one of the three panels of gene-specific CIMP markers (Weisenberger panel, classic panel, or a mixture panel of the previous two) or the genome-wide DNA methylation profile. The associations of CIMP with outcome parameters were estimated using odds ratio (OR) or weighted mean difference (WMD) or hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study using a fixed effects or random effects model.

resultsA total of 29 studies involving 9,393 CRC patients were included for analysis. We observed more BRAF mutations (OR 34.87; 95% CI, 22.49-54.06) and microsatellite instability (MSI) (OR 12.85 95% CI, 8.84-18.68) in CIMP-positive vs. -negative CRCs, whereas KRAS mutations were less frequent (OR 0.47; 95% CI, 0.30-0.75). Subgroup analysis showed that only the genome-wide methylation profile-defined CIMP subset encompassed all BRAF-mutated CRCs. As expected, CIMP-positive CRCs displayed significant associations with female (OR 0.64; 95% CI, 0.56-0.72), older age at diagnosis (WMD 2.77; 95% CI, 1.15-4.38), proximal location (OR 6.91; 95% CI, 5.17-9.23), mucinous histology (OR 3.81; 95% CI, 2.93-4.95), and poor differentiation (OR 4.22; 95% CI, 2.52-7.08). Although CIMP did not show a correlation with tumor stage (OR 1.10; 95% CI, 0.82-1.46), it was associated with shorter overall survival (HR 1.73; 95% CI, 1.27-2.37).

conclusionsThe meta-analysis highlights that CIMP-positive CRCs take their own molecular feature, especially overlapping with BRAF mutations, and clinicopathological features and worse prognosis from CIMP-negative CRCs, suggesting CIMP could be used as an independent prognostic marker for CRCs.

Identifiers

PMID26963001
PMCPMC4822093

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.