Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27599041›Full record

SynthesisBritish journal of cancer2016

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of tumour budding in colorectal cancer.

A C Rogers, D C Winter, A Heeney, D Gibbons, A Lugli, G Puppa, K Sheahan

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in British journal of cancer, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 120 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
120citing papers in PubMed, 7 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

120 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Tumor Budding and Poor Prognosis in Oral Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2023
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Recommendations for reporting tumor budding in colorectal cancer based on the International Tumor Budding Consensus Conference (ITBCC) 2016.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2017
    Guideline
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Distance-based evaluation of tumor budding in colorectal cancer.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2026
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

60 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

7 authors.

A C RogersCentre for Colorectal Disease, St Vincent's University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
D C WinterCentre for Colorectal Disease, St Vincent's University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
A HeeneyCentre for Colorectal Disease, St Vincent's University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
D GibbonsCentre for Colorectal Disease, St Vincent's University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
A LugliClinical Pathology Division, Institute of Pathology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
G PuppaDepartment of Clinical Pathology, Geneva University Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland.
K SheahanCentre for Colorectal Disease, St Vincent's University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTumour budding is a histological finding in epithelial cancers indicating an unfavourable phenotype. Previous studies have demonstrated that it is a negative prognostic indicator in colorectal cancer (CRC), and has been proposed as an additional factor to incorporate into staging protocols.

methodsA systematic review of papers until March 2016 published on Embase, Medline, PubMed, PubMed Central and Cochrane databases pertaining to tumour budding in CRC was performed. Study end points were the presence of lymph node metastases, recurrence (local and distal) and 5-year cancer-related death.

resultsA total of 7821 patients from 34 papers were included, with a mean rate of tumour budding of 36.8±16.5%. Pooled analysis suggested that specimens exhibiting tumour budding were significantly associated with lymph node positivity (OR 4.94, 95% CI 3.96-6.17, P<0.00001), more likely to develop disease recurrence over the time period (OR 5.50, 95% CI 3.64-8.29, P<0.00001) and more likely to lead to cancer-related death at 5 years (OR 4.51, 95% CI 2.55-7.99, P<0.00001).

conclusionsTumour budding in CRC is strongly predictive of lymph node metastases, recurrence and cancer-related death at 5 years, and its incorporation into the CRC staging algorithm will contribute to more effective risk stratification.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaColorectal NeoplasmsHumansLymphatic MetastasisNeoplasm InvasivenessNeoplasm MetastasisPhenotypePrognosisSurvival AnalysisTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID27599041
PMCPMC5046217

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.