Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29217838›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Cancer2018

An evolutionary perspective on field cancerization.

Kit Curtius, Nicholas A Wright, Trevor A Graham

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 299 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
299citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
16.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

299 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 508 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Gastric Mucosa Cancer Risk: The Operative Link on Gastritis Assessment Staging System.The Korean journal of helicobacter and upper gastrointestinal research · 2026
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

239 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kit CurtiusCentre for Tumour Biology, Barts Cancer Institute, EC1M 6BQ London, UK.
Nicholas A WrightCentre for Tumour Biology, Barts Cancer Institute, EC1M 6BQ London, UK.
Trevor A GrahamCentre for Tumour Biology, Barts Cancer Institute, EC1M 6BQ London, UK.
Institute of Cancer Research · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 14895Cancer Research UK 19771Wellcome Trust 202778/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tumorigenesis begins long before the growth of a clinically detectable lesion and, indeed, even before any of the usual morphological correlates of pre-malignancy are recognizable. Field cancerization, which is the replacement of the normal cell population by a cancer-primed cell population that may show no morphological change, is now recognized to underlie the development of many types of cancer, including the common carcinomas of the lung, colon, skin, prostate and bladder. Field cancerization is the consequence of the evolution of somatic cells in the body that results in cells that carry some but not all phenotypes required for malignancy. Here, we review the evidence of field cancerization across organs and examine the biological mechanisms that drive the evolutionary process that results in field creation. We discuss the clinical implications, principally, how measurements of the cancerized field could improve cancer risk prediction in patients with pre-malignant disease.

Indexed as

AnimalsCell Transformation, NeoplasticEvolution, MolecularHumansNeoplasmsPhenotype

Identifiers

PMID29217838
OpenAlexW2774841093

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.