ArticleJournal of translational medicine2018
Circulating tumor cells criteria (CyCAR) versus standard RECIST criteria for treatment response assessment in metastatic colorectal cancer patients.
Article in Journal of translational medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Longitudinal Analysis of Manually and Automatically Classified Circulating Tumor Biomarkers and their Prediction of Survival in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Article
- Precision Oncology Framework Using Circulating Tumor Cells.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Prospects of liquid biopsy in the prognosis and clinical management of gastrointestinal cancers.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2024Review
- The Challenge to Stabilize, Extract and Analyze Urinary Cell-Free DNA (ucfDNA) during Clinical Routine.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Predictive value of circulating tumor cell counts during the treatment of cancer: interactions with the blood microenvironment.International journal of clinical oncology · 2023Article
- A machine learning model for colorectal liver metastasis post-hepatectomy prognostications.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2023Article
- Crosstalk between Circulating Tumor Cells and Plasma Proteins-Impact on Coagulation and Anticoagulation.Cancers · 2023Review
- Dynamic liquid biopsy components as predictive and prognostic biomarkers in colorectal cancer.Journal of experimental & clinical cancer research : CR · 2022Review
- Circulating tumor cells in colorectal cancer in the era of precision medicine.Journal of molecular medicine (Berlin, Germany) · 2022Review
- Exchange of cellular components between platelets and tumor cells: impact on tumor cells behavior.Theranostics · 2022Article
- Liquid biopsy approaches and immunotherapy in colorectal cancer for precision medicine: Are we there yet?Frontiers in oncology · 2022Review
- Hepatocellular carcinoma risk-stratification based on ASGR1 in circulating epithelial cells for cancer interception.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2022Article
- Article
- Detection and clinical significance of circulating tumor cells in colorectal cancer.Biomarker research · 2021Review
- When Tissue is an Issue the Liquid Biopsy is Nonissue: A Review.Oncology and therapy · 2021Review
- Efficacy and safety of short duration radiotherapy combined with chemotherapy for advanced rectal cancer.World journal of clinical cases · 2021Article
- The Polemic Diagnostic Role ofCancers · 2020Review
- Cooperative and Escaping Mechanisms between Circulating Tumor Cells and Blood Constituents.Cells · 2019Review
- Circulating Tumor Cells in Gastrointestinal Cancers: Current Status and Future Perspectives.Frontiers in oncology · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe use of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) as indicators of treatment response in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) needs to be clarified. The objective of this study is to compare the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) with the Cytologic Criteria Assessing Response (CyCAR), based on the presence and phenotypic characterization of CTCs, as indicators of FOLFOX-bevacizumab treatment response.
methods77 mCRC blood samples from FOLFOX-bevacizumab treated patients were analyzed to isolate CTCs before and after (12 and 24 weeks) treatment, using an immunomagnetic separation method. VEGFR expression was identified by double immunostaining.
resultsWe observed a decrease of CTCs (42.8 vs. 18.2%) and VEGFR positivity (69.7% vs. 41.7%) after treatment. According to RECIST, 6.45% of the patients did not show any clinical benefit, whereas 93.55% patients showed a favorable response at 12 weeks. According to CyCAR, 29% had a non-favorable response and 71% patients did not. No significant differences were found between the response assessment by RECIST and CyCAR at 12 or 24 weeks. However, in the multivariate analysis, RECIST at 12 weeks and CyCAR at 24 weeks were independent prognostic factors for OS (HR: 0.1, 95% CI 0.02-0.58 and HR: 0.35, 95% CI 0.12-0.99 respectively).
conclusionsCyCAR results were comparable to RECIST in evaluating the response in mCRC and can be used as an alternative when the limitation of RECIST requires additional response analysis techniques.
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.