Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27845412›Full record

Trial reportScientific reports2016

A comparative analysis and guidance for individualized chemotherapy of stage II and III colorectal cancer patients based on pathological markers.

Yang Han, Su Lu, Fudong Yu, Xisheng Liu, Huimin Sun, Jingtao Wang, Xingwu Zhu, Huijun Lu, Hao Yue, Jing Wang and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical TrialComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Scientific reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

14 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yang HanDepartment of General Surgery, Shanghai General Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 20080, China.
Su LuDepartment of Pathology, Shanghai General Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 20080, China.
Fudong YuDepartment of General Surgery, Shanghai General Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 20080, China.
Xisheng LiuDepartment of General Surgery, Shanghai General Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 20080, China.
Huimin SunDepartment of Pathology, Shanghai General Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 20080, China.
Jingtao WangDepartment of General Surgery, Shanghai General Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 20080, China.
Xingwu ZhuDepartment of General Surgery, Shanghai General Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 20080, China.
Huijun LuDepartment of Pathology, Shanghai General Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 20080, China.
Hao YueDepartment of Pathology, Shanghai General Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 20080, China.
Jing WangDepartment of Pathology, Shanghai General Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 20080, China.
Jun LinDepartment of Pathology, Shanghai General Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 20080, China.
Chongzhi ZhouDepartment of General Surgery, Shanghai General Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 20080, China.
Huamei TangDepartment of Pathology, Shanghai General Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 20080, China.
Zhihai PengDepartment of General Surgery, Shanghai General Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 20080, China.
Shanghai First People's Hospital · CNShanghai Jiao Tong University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Adjuvant chemotherapy is considered the standard of care for patients with colorectal cancer after curative resection. Although current guidelines provide clear instructions for chemotherapy for stage II high-risk and stage III colorectal cancer, it is insufficient to individualize therapy. We analyzed the outcomes of 902 patients with colorectal cancer treated with or without chemotherapy in our hospital. We found Chinese survival benefit for chemotherapy was consistent with current guidelines. Moreover, our data added to the evidence that chemotherapy might be used for elderly patients with stage II high-risk colorectal cancer. Pathological markers could predict response to individualize therapy in a convenient, fast and inexpensive way. We compared survivals of patients with stage II high-risk and stage III colorectal cancer with chemotherapy in different pathological markers expression, and furthermore used 458 colon adenocarcinoma samples from The Cancer Genome Atlas to verify our preliminary results. We confirmed TOPIIα, EGFR and P170 may be sufficiently predictive markers to individualize chemotherapy. FOLFOX was the optimal adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with stage II high-risk and stage III colorectal cancer when TOPIIα was positive or EGFR or P170 was negative.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overBiomarkers, TumorColorectal NeoplasmsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingPractice Guidelines as TopicPrecision MedicineBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID27845412
PMCPMC5109035
OpenAlexW2554527615

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.