Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29866946›Full record

ArticleThe oncologist2018

Comparative Molecular Analyses of Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma, Esophageal Adenocarcinoma, and Gastric Adenocarcinoma.

Mohamed E Salem, Alberto Puccini, Joanne Xiu, Derek Raghavan, Heinz-Josef Lenz, W Michael Korn, Anthony F Shields, Philip A Philip, John L Marshall, Richard M Goldberg

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The oncologist, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 127 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
127citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
14.9field-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

127 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 190 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. SEOM-GEMCAD-TTD clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of esophageal cancer (update 2025).Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. SEOM-GEMCAD-TTD Clinical Guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of esophageal cancer (2021).Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2022
    Guideline
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Synergistic Effects of DNA-PKcs Inhibition and Radiotherapy in Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma.FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology · 2026
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Ethnic genomic diversity in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2026
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

67 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

10 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Mohamed E SalemLevine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA mohamed.salem@carolinashealthcare.org.
Alberto PucciniUniversity of Southern California, Keck School of Medicine, Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2492-4043
Joanne XiuCaris Life Sciences, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
Derek RaghavanLevine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA.
Heinz-Josef LenzUniversity of Southern California, Keck School of Medicine, Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, California, USA.
W Michael KornCaris Life Sciences, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
Anthony F ShieldsDepartment of Oncology, Karmanos Cancer Institute, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, USA.
Philip A PhilipDepartment of Oncology, Karmanos Cancer Institute, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, USA.
John L MarshallRuesch Center for The Cure of Gastrointestinal Cancers, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA.
Richard M GoldbergWest Virginia University Cancer Institute, Morgantown, West Virginia, USA.
Caris Life Sciences (United States) · USCarolinas Healthcare System · USUniversity of Southern California · USGeorgetown University Medical Center · USThe Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute · USWayne State University · USWest Virginia University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGastroesophageal cancers are often grouped together even though cancers that originate in the esophagus often exhibit different histological features, geographical distribution, risk factors, and clinical characteristics than those originating in the stomach. Herein, we aimed to compare the molecular characteristics of three different gastroesophageal cancer types: esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), and gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC). SUBJECTS, MATERIALS, AND

methodsIn total, 3,342 gastroesophageal cancers were examined. Next-generation sequencing was performed on genomic DNA isolated from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor samples using the NextSeq platform. Tumor mutational burden was measured by counting all nonsynonymous missense mutations, and microsatellite instability was examined at over 7,000 target microsatellite loci. Immunohistochemistry and in situ hybridization techniques were also performed.

resultsWhen compared with EAC and GAC, ESCC showed significantly lower mutational rates within

conclusionMolecular comparisons between ESCC, EAC, and GAC revealed distinct differences between squamous cell carcinomas and adenocarcinomas in each platform tested. Different prevalence of HER2/neu overexpression and amplification, and immune-related biomarkers between ESCC, EAC, and GAC, suggests different sensitivity to HER2-targeted therapy and immune checkpoint inhibition. These findings bring into question the validity of grouping patients with EAC and ESCC together in clinical trials and provide insight into molecular features that may represent novel therapeutic targets. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This study highlights the genomic heterogeneity of gastroesophageal cancers, showing striking molecular differences between tumors originating from different locations. Moreover, this study showed that esophageal squamous cell carcinomas exhibit a unique molecular profile, whereas gastric adenocarcinomas and esophageal adenocarcinomas have some similarities, supporting the fact that adenocarcinomas and squamous cell carcinomas are completely different diseases, irrespective of the tumor location. This raises the question of whether treatment of gastroesophageal tumors should be determined according to histological subtype and molecular targets rather than anatomical site. These findings provide insights that could enable physicians to better select patients and inform therapeutic choices in order to improve clinical outcome.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaEsophageal NeoplasmsEsophageal Squamous Cell CarcinomaFemaleHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansMaleMiddle AgedStomach NeoplasmsAdenocarcinomasGastroesophageal cancersNext‐generation sequencingSquamous cell carcinoma

Identifiers

PMID29866946
PMCPMC6291329
OpenAlexW2805193692

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.