Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29594043›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2018

Alexander N May, Bryan D Crawford, Aurora M Nedelcu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Unique Cohorts of Salivary Gland Cancer Cells as anJournal of maxillofacial and oral surgery · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Technologies for Viable Circulating Tumor Cell Isolation.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. The emerging role of circulating tumor cells in cancer management.American journal of translational research · 2020
    Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

Alexander N MayBiology Department, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB, Canada.
Bryan D CrawfordBiology Department, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB, Canada.
Aurora M NedelcuBiology Department, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The isolation of clusters of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) from cancer patients has recently challenged the accepted view that the initiation of secondary tumors during metastasis involves the dissemination of individual cancer cells. As such clusters appear to be more aggressive than single tumor cells, CTC clusters are now considered a main player in the metastatic process, and many studies are exploring their diagnostic, prognostic, and clinical significance. However, several technical challenges limit advances in this area. Here, we suggest the use of established cancer cell lines that grow as cell clusters in suspension as a complementary approach that can help in understanding the biology of CTC clusters and their clinical significance. We argue that the many similarities between these "surrogate" clusters and the CTC clusters isolated from patients (e.g., in terms of size, morphology, heterogeneous expression of epithelial and mesenchymal markers, and type of cell-cell junctions) make these cell lines ideal systems for the development of strategies aimed at preventing or slowing down the metastatic process by targeting CTC clusters.

Indexed as

cancercirculating tumor cellcirculating tumor cell clustersdesmosomesE-cadherinmetastasisvimentin

Identifiers

PMID29594043
PMCPMC5858030

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.