ArticleWorld journal of surgery2019
Prognosticators of Long-Term Outcomes of TNM Stage II Colorectal Cancer: Molecular Patterns or Clinicopathological Features.
Article in World journal of surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Antimetastatic effects of MRTX1133 KRAS G12D specific inhibitor in a liver metastatic model of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- KRAS inhibitors may prevent colorectal cancer metachronous metastasis by suppressing TGF‑β mediated epithelial‑mesenchymal transition.Molecular medicine reports · 2025Article
- Comparative Outcomes of Neo-Adjuvant Chemo-Radiotherapy in Stage II and III Mucinous versus Non-Mucinous Rectal Adenocarcinoma: A Retrospective Study.Cancer management and research · 2025Article
- Clinicopathological characteristics and outcomes of colorectal mucinous adenocarcinoma: a retrospective analysis from China.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- The Potential Role of Genomic Signature in Stage II Relapsed Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Patients: A Mono-Institutional Study.Cancer management and research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients with stage II colorectal cancer (CRC) have a higher risk of recurrence when they have certain risk factors, including clinical and pathological patterns. However, as the prognostic role of molecular patterns for stage II disease is still unclear, this study aimed to investigate it.
methodsA total of 509 patients with stage II CRC were enrolled, and all clinical, pathological, and molecular data were collected. Molecular patterns included microsatellite instability (MSI); elevated microsatellite alterations at selected tetranucleotides (EMAST) status; and expression of RAS/RAF genes, genes of the APC pathway, and other gene mutations. The endpoints were oncological outcomes, including overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), disease-free survival (DFS), local recurrence (LR), and distant recurrence (DR). Cox regression analysis was used.
resultsNumerous molecular patterns influenced the oncological outcomes on univariate analysis, but no variable reached significance in LR. On multivariate analysis, a mucinous component (MC) > 50% (P < 0.01) was significant for OS and CSS. Lymphovascular invasion (LVI; P< 0.01), MC > 50% (P < 0.01), and EMAST-H (P = 0.02) significantly influenced DFS, whereas LVI (P < 0.01), MC > 50% (P < 0.01), and TP53 mutation (P = 0.02) were significant for DR.
conclusionsIn this study, MSI, EMAST, and RAS/RAF alterations did not influence the oncological outcomes. Overall, LVI and MC were two significant prognostic factors for DFS and DR. Thus, the histopathology, rather than the genes, plays a major role in the prognosis of patients with stage II CRC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31515570What 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.