Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32463385›Full record

ReviewRadiology and oncology2020

Consensus molecular subtypes (CMS) in metastatic colorectal cancer - personalized medicine decision.

Martina Rebersek

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Radiology and oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Biomarker Identification through Proteomics in Colorectal Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Colorectal Cancer and Its Microenvironment: A Brief Review.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2024
    Review
  13. [Molecular pathology of colorectal cancer].Pathologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2023
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. PPy@FeFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022
    Article
  19. Review
  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

1 author.

Martina RebersekDepartment of Medical Oncology, Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common types of cancer in the world. Metastatic disease is still incurable in most of these patients, but the survival rate has improved by treatment with novel systemic chemotherapy and targeted therapy in combination with surgery. New knowledge of its complex heterogeneity in terms of genetics, epigenetics, transcriptomics and microenvironment, including prognostic and clinical characteristics, led to its classification into various molecular subtypes of metastatic CRC, called consensus molecular subtypes (CMS). The CMS classification thus enables the medical oncologists to adjust the treatment from case to case. They can determine which type of systemic chemotherapy or targeted therapy is best suited to a specific patient, what dosages are needed and in what order. Conclusions CMS in metastatic CRC are the new tool to include the knowledge of molecular factors, tumour stroma and signalling pathways for personalized, patient-orientated systemic treatment in precision medicine.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsNeoplasm MetastasisPrecision MedicineAntineoplastic AgentsBiomarkers, TumorCombined Modality TherapyConsensus SequenceHumansPrognosisTumor MicroenvironmentAntineoplastic AgentsBiomarkers, TumorbiomarkersCMS1CMS2CMS3CMS4consensus molecular subtypesheterogeneitymetastatic colorectal cancer

Identifiers

PMID32463385
PMCPMC7409603

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.