Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27148472›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in oncology2016

Pathophysiological Basis for the Formation of the Tumor Microenvironment.

Michael R Horsman, Peter Vaupel

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in oncology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 71 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
71citing papers in PubMed
–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

71 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Advances and Prospects in the Treatment of Pancreatic Cancer.International journal of nanomedicine · 2023
    Review
  19. Review
  20. Review

11 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.

Michael R HorsmanDepartment of Experimental Clinical Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital , Aarhus , Denmark.
Peter VaupelDepartment of Radiooncology and Radiotherapy, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München (TUM) , Munich , Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Poor microenvironmental conditions are a characteristic feature of solid tumors. Such conditions occur because the tumor vascular supply, which develops from the normal host vasculature by the process of angiogenesis, is generally inadequate in meeting the oxygen and nutrient demands of the growing tumor mass. Regions of low oxygenation (hypoxia) is believed to be the most critical deficiency, since it has been well documented to play a significant role in influencing the response to conventional radiation and chemotherapy treatments, as well as influencing malignant progression in terms of aggressive growth and recurrence of the primary tumor and its metastatic spread. As a result, significant emphasis has been placed on finding clinically applicable approaches to identify those tumors that contain hypoxia and realistic methods to target this hypoxia. However, most studies consider hypoxia as a single entity, yet we now know that it is multifactorial. Furthermore, hypoxia is often associated with other microenvironmental parameters, such as elevated interstitial fluid pressure, glycolysis, low pH, and reduced bioenergetic status, and these can also influence the effects of hypoxia. Here, we review the various aspects of hypoxia, but also discuss the role of the other microenvironmental parameters associated with hypoxia.

Indexed as

chemotherapyhypoxiamalignant progressionradiotherapytumor microenvironment

Identifiers

PMID27148472
PMCPMC4828447

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.