Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31069311›Full record

ReviewAPL bioengineering2018

Review: Mechanotransduction in ovarian cancer: Shearing into the unknown.

Caymen Novak, Eric Horst, Geeta Mehta

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in APL bioengineering, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing 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

46 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Probing T-cell activation in nanoliter tumor co-cultures using membrane displacement trap arrays.Integrative biology : quantitative biosciences from nano to macro · 2024
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Effect of mechanical forces on cellular response to radiation.Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology · 2022
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

3 authors.

Caymen NovakDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-2800, USA.
Eric Horst
Geeta Mehta

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ovarian cancer remains a deadly diagnosis with an 85% recurrence rate and a 5-year survival rate of only 46%. The poor outlook of this disease has improved little over the past 50 years owing to the lack of early detection, chemoresistance and the complex tumor microenvironment. Within the peritoneal cavity, the presence of ascites stimulates ovarian tumors with shear stresses. The stiff environment found within the tumor extracellular matrix and the peritoneal membrane are also implicated in the metastatic potential and epithelial to mesenchymal transition (EMT) of ovarian cancer. Though these mechanical cues remain highly relevant to the understanding and treatment of ovarian cancers, our current knowledge of their biological processes and their clinical relevance is deeply lacking. Seminal studies on ovarian cancer mechanotransduction have demonstrated close ties between mechanotransduction and ovarian cancer chemoresistance, EMT, enhanced cancer stem cell populations, and metastasis. This review summarizes our current understanding of ovarian cancer mechanotransduction and the gaps in knowledge that exist. Future investigations on ovarian cancer mechanotransduction will greatly improve clinical outcomes via systematic studies that determine shear stress magnitude and its influence on ovarian cancer progression, metastasis, and treatment.

Identifiers

PMID31069311
PMCPMC6481715

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.