Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28957880›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in supportive and palliative care2017

Research priorities in cancer cachexia: The University of Rochester Cancer Center NCI Community Oncology Research Program Research Base Symposium on Cancer Cachexia and Sarcopenia.

Richard F Dunne, Karen M Mustian, Jose M Garcia, William Dale, Reid Hayward, Breton Roussel, Mary M Buschmann, Bette J Caan, Calvin L Cole, Fergal J Fleming and 4 more

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in supportive and palliative care, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Biomarkers for Cancer Cachexia: A Mini Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Cancer-associated weight loss: releasing its firm grip on negative clinical outcomes.Current opinion in supportive and palliative care · 2017
    Article
  14. Article
  15. 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 7 institutions in 1 country.

Richard F DunneaWilmot Cancer Institute, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York bDepartment of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington cDepartment of Supportive Care Medicine, City of Hope, Duarte dSchool of Sport and Exercise Science, University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, Colorado eDepartment of Medicine, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island fDepartment of Medicine, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Ilinois gKaiser Permanente Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, California, USA.
Karen M Mustian
Jose M Garcia
William Dale
Reid Hayward
Breton Roussel
Mary M Buschmann
Bette J Caan
Calvin L Cole
Fergal J Fleming
Joe V Chakkalakal
David C Linehan
Aram F Hezel
Supriya G Mohile
University of Rochester Medical Center · USBrown University · USCity of Hope · USKaiser Permanente · USUniversity of Chicago · USUniversity of Northern Colorado · USUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

URCC NCORP Research BaseUG1CA189961 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER · PI Michelle C Janelsins, KAREN M. MUSTIAN · 2014 to 2026
$67.7M
Cancer Control Research Training Curriculum (R25T)R25CA102618 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER · PI JANELSINS, MICHELLE C, MORROW, GARY R · 2004 to 2018
$6.7M
NCI NIH HHS R25 CA102618NCI NIH HHS UG1 CA189961
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewCancer cachexia remains understudied and there are no standard treatments available despite the publication of an international consensus definition and the completion of several large phase III intervention trials in the past 6 years. In September 2015, The University of Rochester Cancer Center NCORP Research Base led a Symposium on Cancer Cachexia and Sarcopenia with goals of reviewing the state of the science, identifying knowledge gaps, and formulating research priorities in cancer cachexia through active discussion and consensus. RECENT

findingsResearch priorities that emerged from the discussion included the implementation of morphometrics into clinical decision making, establishing specific diagnostic criteria for the stages of cachexia, expanding patient selection in intervention trials, identifying clinically meaningful trial endpoints, and the investigation of exercise as an intervention for cancer cachexia. SUMMARY: Standardizing how we define and measure cancer cachexia, targeting its complex biologic mechanisms, enrolling patients early in their disease course, and evaluating exercise, either alone or in combination, were proposed as initiatives that may ultimately result in the improved design of cancer cachexia therapeutic trials.

Indexed as

Androgen Receptor AntagonistsBody CompositionCachexiaClinical Decision-MakingClinical Trials as TopicExerciseGhrelinHumansInflammation MediatorsNeoplasmsPatient SelectionReceptors, GhrelinResearch DesignSeverity of Illness IndexAndrogen Receptor AntagonistsGhrelinInflammation MediatorsReceptors, Ghrelin

Identifiers

PMID28957880
PMCPMC5658778
OpenAlexW2758433224

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.