Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31409002›Full record

ReviewCancers2019

Biological Significance of Tumor Heterogeneity in Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma.

Lehang Lin, De-Chen Lin

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. The consensus molecular subtypes of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. RBM15 increase tumor-infiltrating CD4+ T cell in ESCCAmerican journal of cancer research · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  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

2 authors.

Lehang LinGuangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Malignant Tumor Epigenetics and Gene Regulation, Medical Research Center, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou 510120, China.
De-Chen LinGuangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Malignant Tumor Epigenetics and Gene Regulation, Medical Research Center, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou 510120, China. lindch5@mail.sysu.edu.cn.

Funding

China Postdoctoral Science Foundation 2018M640867, 2019T120774Guangdong Science and Technology Department 2017B030314026National Natural Science Foundation of China 81672786, 81872306, 81802692
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) is a common and aggressive malignancy, with hitherto dismal clinical outcome. Genomic analyses of patient samples reveal a complex heterogeneous landscape for ESCC, which presents in both intertumor and intratumor forms, manifests at both genomic and epigenomic levels, and contributes significantly to tumor evolution, drug resistance, and metastasis. Here, we review the important molecular characteristics underlying ESCC heterogeneity, with an emphasis on genomic aberrations and their functional contribution to cancer evolutionary trajectories. We further discuss how novel experimental tools, including single-cell sequencing and three-dimensional organoids, may advance our understanding of tumor heterogeneity. Lastly, we suggest that deciphering the mechanisms governing tumor heterogeneity holds the potential to developing precision therapeutics for ESCC patients.

Indexed as

esophageal squamous cell carcinomaprecision medicinetumor evolutiontumor heterogeneity

Identifiers

PMID31409002
PMCPMC6721624
OpenAlexW2967897991

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.