Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27341592›Full record

ReviewCancer journal (Sudbury, Mass.)

Biomarker in Colorectal Cancer.

Marta Schirripa, Heinz-Josef Lenz

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancer journal (Sudbury, Mass.). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Aptasensors for Cancerous Exosome Detection.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Integrative Gene Expression Profiling Analysis to Investigate Potential Prognostic Biomarkers for Colorectal Cancer.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2020
    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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Marta SchirripaFrom the USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
Heinz-Josef Lenz
University of Southern California · US

Funding

USC/NORRIS COMPREHENSIVE CANCER CENTER (CORE) SUPPORTP30CA014089 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI Fumito Ito · 1985 to 2026
$181.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA014089
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the last 20 years, improvements in metastatic colorectal cancer treatment lead to a radical raise of outcomes with median survival reaching now more than 30 months. Despite that, the identification of predictive and/or prognostic biomarker still represents a challenging issue, and until today, although clinician and researchers might face with a deeper knowledge of biological mechanisms related to colorectal cancer, many pieces of evidence underline the heterogeneity and the dynamism of such disease. In the present review, we describe the road leading to the discovery of RAS mutations, BRAF V600E mutation, and microsatellite instability role in colorectal cancer; second, we discuss some of the possible major pitfalls of biomarker research, and lastly, we give new suggestions for future research in this field.

Indexed as

BiomarkersColorectal NeoplasmsHumansMicrosatellite InstabilityMicrosatellite RepeatsMutationPrognosisProto-Oncogene Proteins B-rafras ProteinsTranslational Research, BiomedicalBiomarkersProto-Oncogene Proteins B-rafras Proteins

Identifiers

PMID27341592
PMCPMC4955946
OpenAlexW2465871467

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.