ArticleTumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine2016
Unexpected frequency of genomic alterations in histologically normal colonic tissue from colon cancer patients.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- AhRR and PPP1R3C: Potential Prognostic Biomarkers for Serous Ovarian Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Evolution and progression of Barrett's oesophagus to oesophageal cancer.Nature reviews. Cancer · 2021Review
- Plausibility of trophoblastic-like regulation of cancer tissue.Cancer management and research · 2019Article
- Identification of different mutational profiles in cancers arising in specific colon segments by next generation sequencing.Oncotarget · 2018Article
- Genomic approaches to accelerate cancer interception.The Lancet. Oncology · 2017Review
- Hypothesis about Transdifferentiation As Backbone of Malignancy.Frontiers in oncology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As shown by genomic studies, colorectal cancer (CRC) is a highly heterogeneous disease, where copy number alterations (CNAs) may greatly vary among different patients. To explore whether CNAs may be present also in histologically normal tissues from patients affected by CRC, we performed CGH + SNP Microarray on 15 paired tumoral and normal samples. Here, we report for the first time the occurrence of CNAs as a common feature of the histologically normal tissue from CRC patients, particularly CNAs affecting different oncogenes and tumor-suppressor genes, including some not previously reported in CRC and others known as being involved in tumor progression. Moreover, from the comparison of normal vs paired tumoral tissue, we were able to identify three groups: samples with an increased number of CNAs in tumoral vs normal tissue, samples with a similar number of CNAs in both tissues, and samples with a decrease of CNAs in tumoral vs normal tissue, which may be likely due to a selection of the cell population within the tumor. In conclusion, our approach allowed us to uncover for the first time an unexpected frequency of genetic alteration in normal tissue, suggesting that tumorigenic genetic lesions are already present in histologically normal colonic tissue and that the use in array comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) studies of normal samples as reference for the paired tumors can lead to misrepresented genomic data, which may be incomplete or limited, especially if used for the research of target molecules for personalized therapy and for the possible correlation with clinical outcome.
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.