ArticleOncotarget2017
Molecular profiling identifies prognostic markers of stage IA lung adenocarcinoma.
Article in Oncotarget, 2017. 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.
- Multi-omics analysis unravels the underlying mechanisms of poor prognosis and differential therapeutic responses of solid predominant lung adenocarcinoma.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Article
- Molecular differences across invasive lung adenocarcinoma morphological subgroups.Translational lung cancer research · 2020Article
- Prognostic alternative splicing signature reveals the landscape of immune infiltration in Pancreatic Cancer.Journal of Cancer · 2020Article
- Identification of 5-Gene Signature Improves Lung Adenocarcinoma Prognostic Stratification Based on Differential Expression Invasion Genes of Molecular Subtypes.BioMed research international · 2020Article
- Profiling of prognostic alternative splicing in melanoma.Oncology letters · 2019Article
- Spread through air spaces predicts a worse survival in patients with stage I adenocarcinomas >2 cm after radical lobectomy.Journal of thoracic disease · 2018Article
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 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We previously showed that different pathologic subtypes were associated with different prognostic values in patients with stage IA lung adenocarcinoma (AC). We hypothesize that differential gene expression profiles of different subtypes may be valuable factors for prognosis in stage IA lung adenocarcinoma. We performed microarray gene expression profiling on tumor tissues micro-dissected from patients with acinar and solid predominant subtypes of stage IA lung adenocarcinoma. These patients had undergone a lobectomy and mediastinal lymph node dissection at the Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai, China in 2012. No patient had preoperative treatment. We performed the Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA) analysis to look for gene expression signatures associated with tumor subtypes. The histologic subtypes of all patients were classified according to the 2015 WHO lung Adenocarcinoma classification. We found that patients with the solid predominant subtype are enriched for genes involved in RNA polymerase activity as well as inactivation of the p53 pathway. Further, we identified a list of genes that may serve as prognostic markers for stage IA lung adenocarcinoma. Validation in the TCGA database shows that these genes are correlated with survival, suggesting that they are novel prognostic factors for stage IA lung adenocarcinoma. In conclusion, we have uncovered novel prognostic factors for stage IA lung adenocarcinoma using gene expression profiling in combination with histopathology subtyping.
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.