Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30134800›Full record

ReviewMolecular medicine (Cambridge, Mass.)2018

Effects of radiation on the metastatic process.

Nora Sundahl, Fréderic Duprez, Piet Ost, Wilfried De Neve, Marc Mareel

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Molecular medicine (Cambridge, Mass.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing 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

38 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Development and Validation of a Nomogram for Predicting Postoperative Distant Metastasis in Patients with Cervical Cancer.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2022
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

5 authors.

Nora SundahlDepartment of Radiation-Oncology, Ghent University Hospital, C. Heymanslaan 10, 9000, Ghent, Belgium. nora.sundahl@ugent.be.ORCID 0000-0001-8530-4932
Fréderic DuprezDepartment of Radiation-Oncology, Ghent University Hospital, C. Heymanslaan 10, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Piet OstDepartment of Radiation-Oncology, Ghent University Hospital, C. Heymanslaan 10, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Wilfried De NeveDepartment of Radiation-Oncology, Ghent University Hospital, C. Heymanslaan 10, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Marc MareelDepartment of Radiation-Oncology, Ghent University Hospital, C. Heymanslaan 10, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Radiotherapy remains one of the corner stones in the treatment of various malignancies and often leads to an improvement in overall survival. Nonetheless, pre-clinical evidence indicates that radiation can entail pro-metastatic effects via multiple pathways. Via direct actions on cancer cells and indirect actions on the tumor microenvironment, radiation has the potential to enhance epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition, invasion, migration, angiogenesis and metastasis. However, the data remains ambiguous and clinical observations that unequivocally prove these findings are lacking. In this review we discuss the pre-clinical and clinical data on the local and systemic effect of irradiation on the metastatic process with an emphasis on the molecular pathways involved.

Indexed as

Neoplastic ProcessesAnimalsCell MovementHumansNeoplasmsNeovascularization, PathologicRadiotherapyCancerInvasionMetastasisRadiationRadiotherapy

Identifiers

PMID30134800
PMCPMC6016893

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.