Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29463860›Full record

ReviewOncogene2018

The path to metastatic mouse models of colorectal cancer.

Gabriele Romano, Sharmeen Chagani, Lawrence N Kwong

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Oncogene, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Outcompeting cancer.Nature reviews. Cancer · 2020
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
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.

Gabriele RomanoThe Department of Translational Molecular Pathology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Sharmeen ChaganiThe Department of Translational Molecular Pathology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Lawrence N KwongThe Department of Translational Molecular Pathology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. lkwong@mdanderson.org.
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The study and comprehension of the molecular mechanisms underlying cancer biology strongly rely on mouse modeling. An ideal mouse model should have molecular, histopathological, and etiological characteristics as close as possible to those of the corresponding human tumors. Among solid tumors, colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the malignancies that best suits reproduction in an animal model: it evolves through a progressive set of molecular events and is generally associated with a precise histopathology and a neat cataloging of stages and grades. The development of refined CRC mouse models over several decades has seen them recently evolve toward sophisticated systems that ever more closely approximate the human pathology, with different models addressing different human CRC subtypes. In particular, a metastatic CRC model has been seen as a "holy grail" in this field, and we describe in this review the path taken to achieve metastatic models and discuss the path forward.

Indexed as

Disease Models, AnimalAnimalsCarcinogensColorectal NeoplasmsHumansMiceMutationNeoplasm MetastasisCarcinogens

Identifiers

PMID29463860
OpenAlexW2790226878

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.