ArticlePloS one2018
Tumor-based gene expression biomarkers to predict survival following curative intent resection for stage I lung adenocarcinoma.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrognostic biomarkers are needed in clinical setting to predict outcome after resection for early-stage lung adenocarcinoma. The goal of this study is to validate tumor-based single-gene expression biomarkers with demonstrated prognostic value in order to move them along the clinical translation pipeline.
methodsPrognostic genes were selected from the literature and the best candidates measured by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) in tumors of 233 patients with stage I adenocarcinoma. Significant prognostic genes were then validated in an independent set of 210 patients matching the first set in terms of histology, stage, and clinical data.
resultsEleven genes with demonstrated prognostic value were selected from the literature. Complementary analyses in public databases and our own microarray dataset led to the investigation of six genes associated with good (BTG2, SELENBP1 and NFIB) or poor outcome (RRM1, EZH2 and FOXM1). In the first set of patients, EZH2 and RRM1 were significantly associated with better survival on top of age, sex and pathological stage (EZH2 p = 3.2e-02, RRM1 p = 5.9e-04). The prognostic values of EZH2 and RRM1 were not replicated in the second set of patients. A trend was observed for both genes in the joint analyses (n = 443) with higher expression associated with worse outcome.
conclusionAdenocarcinoma-specific mRNA expression levels of EZH2 and RRM1 are associated with poor post-surgical survival in the first set of patients, but not replicated in a clinically and pathologically matched independent validation set. This study highlights challenges associated with clinical translation of prognostic biomarkers.
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.