Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30173350›Full record

ReviewCellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS2018

Microsatellite instability in gastric cancer: molecular bases, clinical perspectives, and new treatment approaches.

Margherita Ratti, Andrea Lampis, Jens C Hahne, Rodolfo Passalacqua, Nicola Valeri

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 153 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
153citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
13.6field-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

153 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 226 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Research progress in diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic cancer with mismatch repair and microsatellite instability.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review

93 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Margherita RattiDivision of Molecular Pathology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
Andrea LampisDivision of Molecular Pathology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
Jens C HahneDivision of Molecular Pathology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK. Jens.Hahne@icr.ac.uk.
Rodolfo PassalacquaDivision of Oncology, Medical Department, ASST di Cremona, Ospedale di Cremona, Cremona, Italy.
Nicola ValeriDivision of Molecular Pathology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
Institute of Cancer Research · GBIstituti Ospitalieri di Cremona · ITRoyal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 18052
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gastric cancer is one of the most aggressive malignancies, with limited treatment options in both locally advanced and metastatic setting, resulting in poor prognosis. Based on genomic characterization, stomach tumour has recently been described as a heterogeneous disease composed by different subtypes, each of them with peculiar molecular aspects and specific clinical behaviour. With an incidence of 22% among all western gastric tumour cases, stomach cancer with microsatellite instability was identified as one of these subgroups. Retrospective studies and limited prospective trials reported differences between gastric cancers with microsatellite stability and those with instability, mainly concerning clinical and pathological features, but also in regard to immunological microenvironment, correlation with prognostic value, and responses to treatment. In particular, gastric cancer with microsatellite instability constitutes a small but relevant subgroup associated with older age, female sex, distal stomach location, and lower number of lymph-node metastases. Emerging data attribute to microsatellite instability status a favourable prognostic meaning, whereas the poor outcomes reported after perioperative chemotherapy administration suggest a detrimental role of cytotoxic drugs in this gastric cancer subgroup. The strong immunogenicity and the widespread expression of immune-checkpoint ligands make microsatellite instability subtype more vulnerable to immunotherapeutic approach, e.g., with anti-PD-L1 and anti-CTLA4 antibodies. Since gastric cancer with microsatellite instability shows specific features and clinical behaviour not overlapping with microsatellite stable disease, microsatellite instability test might be suitable for inclusion in a diagnostic setting for all tumour stages to guarantee the most targeted and effective treatment to every patient.

Indexed as

Antibodies, MonoclonalAntineoplastic AgentsDNA RepairHumansMicrosatellite InstabilityMicrosatellite RepeatsStomach NeoplasmsTumor MicroenvironmentAntibodies, MonoclonalAntineoplastic AgentsAdjuvant chemotherapyGastric cancerImmune-checkpoint inhibitorsMicrosatellite instabilityMolecular stratificationPredictive and prognostic value

Identifiers

PMID30173350
PMCPMC6182336
OpenAlexW2889377217

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.