ArticleOncology letters2017
Benefit of rebiopsy for deciding treatment strategy in rectal cancer: A case report.
Article in Oncology letters, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms: genes, therapies and models.Disease models & mechanisms · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rebiopsy is considered an option for specific types of cancer, such as breast, non-small cell lung, and prostate cancer, in clinical trials and in practice. The benefit of rebiopsy comes from the selection of a new treatment strategy based on the genetic profile of the cells, which may reflect the development of drug resistance or hormonal changes. For colorectal cancer, the presence of different genomic mutations between the primary tumor and its metastases is rare, and rebiopsy is therefore not generally performed. The present study reports the case of a 68-year-old man who was initially diagnosed with metastatic adenocarcinoma from a primary colorectal cancer, but was subsequently rediagnosed with metastatic neuroendocrine carcinoma based on the pathological rebiopsy results. The patient responded well to cisplatin and etoposide treatment, after not responding to initial FOLFOX treatment. In this case, rebiopsy resulted in a change in treatment regimen and improved the patient's quality of life and his long-term survival. This case indicates that, when a colorectal cancer patient is unresponsive to standard treatment, it may be beneficial for the clinician to suspect an atypical histological type, and to consider rebiopsy.
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.