ArticleCancer medicine2018
A novel dual-marker expression panel for easy and accurate risk stratification of patients with gastric cancer.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Longitudinal non-targeted metabolomic profiling of urine samples for monitoring of kidney transplantation patients.Renal failure · 2024Article
- Article
- MAGED2 Is Required under Hypoxia for cAMP Signaling by Inhibiting MDM2-Dependent Endocytosis of G-Alpha-S.Cells · 2022Article
- Potential roles of synaptotagmin family members in cancers: Recent advances and prospects.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Review
- SYT8 promotes pancreatic cancer progression via the TNNI2/ERRα/SIRT1 signaling pathway.Cell death discovery · 2021Article
- Are Borrmann's Types of Advanced Gastric Cancer Distinct Clinicopathological and Molecular Entities? A Western Study.Cancers · 2021Article
- Shared genetic susceptibilities for irritable bowel syndrome and depressive disorder in Chinese patients uncovered by pooled whole-exome sequencing.Journal of advanced research · 2020Article
- A novel dual-marker expression panel for easy and accurate risk stratification of patients with gastric cancer.Cancer medicine · 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Development of specific biomarkers is necessary for individualized management of patients with gastric cancer. The aim of this study was to design a simple expression panel comprising novel molecular markers for precise risk stratification. Patients (n = 200) who underwent gastrectomy for gastric cancer were randomly assigned into learning and validation sets. Tissue mRNA expression levels of 15 candidate molecular markers were determined using quantitative PCR analysis. A dual-marker expression panel was created according to concordance index (C-index) values of overall survival for all 105 combinations of two markers in the learning set. The reproducibility and clinical significance of the dual-marker expression panel were evaluated in the validation set. The patient characteristics of the learning and validation sets were well balanced. The C-index values of combinations were significantly higher compared with those of single markers. The panel with the highest C-index (0.718) of the learning set comprised SYT8 and MAGED2, which clearly stratified patients into low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups. The reproducibility of the panel was demonstrated in the validation set. High expression scores were significantly associated with larger tumor size, vascular invasion, lymph node metastasis, peritoneal metastasis, and advanced disease. The dual-marker expression panel provides a simple tool that clearly stratifies patients with gastric cancer into low-, intermediate-, and high risk after gastrectomy.
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.