Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34064065›Full record

ReviewCancers2021

Comprehensive Volatilome and Metabolome Signatures of Colorectal Cancer in Urine: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Celia Mallafré-Muro, Maria Llambrich, Raquel Cumeras, Antonio Pardo, Jesús Brezmes, Santiago Marco, Josep Gumà

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Celia Mallafré-MuroDepartment of Electronics and Biomedical Engineering, University of Barcelona, 08028 Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-8247-1719
Maria LlambrichMetabolomics Interdisciplinary Group (MiL@b), Department of Electrical Electronic Engineering and Automation, Universitat Rovira i Virgili (URV), IISPV, CERCA, 43007 Tarragona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-8418-0982
Raquel CumerasMetabolomics Interdisciplinary Group (MiL@b), Department of Electrical Electronic Engineering and Automation, Universitat Rovira i Virgili (URV), IISPV, CERCA, 43007 Tarragona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-4663-4247
Antonio PardoDepartment of Electronics and Biomedical Engineering, University of Barcelona, 08028 Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-4369-544X
Jesús BrezmesMetabolomics Interdisciplinary Group (MiL@b), Department of Electrical Electronic Engineering and Automation, Universitat Rovira i Virgili (URV), IISPV, CERCA, 43007 Tarragona, Spain.
Santiago MarcoDepartment of Electronics and Biomedical Engineering, University of Barcelona, 08028 Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-2663-2965
Josep GumàOncology Department, Hospital Universitari Sant Joan de Reus, Institut d'Investigació Sanitària Pere Virgili (IISPV), Universitat Rovira i Virgili (URV), 43204 Reus, Spain.
Institut de Recerca Biomèdica Catalunya Sud · ESInstitute for Bioengineering of Catalonia · ESInstituto de Salud Carlos III · ESUniversitat de Barcelona · ES

Funding

Agència de Gestió d'Ajuts Universitaris i de Recerca 2018LLAV00072Departament d'Innovació, Universitats i Empresa, Generalitat de Catalunya 2017 SGR 1119Departament d'Innovació, Universitats i Empresa, Generalitat de Catalunya 2017 SGR 1721European Cooperation in Science and Technology CA17118H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions 798038Spanish National Plan for Scientific and Technical Research and Innovation RTI2018-098577-B-C21Spanish National Plan for Scientific and Technical Research and Innovation RTI2018-098577-B-C22Universitat de Barcelona APIF_18_19Universitat Rovira i Virgili 2019PMF-PIPF-37
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To increase compliance with colorectal cancer screening programs and to reduce the recommended screening age, cheaper and easy non-invasiveness alternatives to the fecal immunochemical test should be provided. Following the PRISMA procedure of studies that evaluated the metabolome and volatilome signatures of colorectal cancer in human urine samples, an exhaustive search in PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus found 28 studies that met the required criteria. There were no restrictions on the query for the type of study, leading to not only colorectal cancer samples versus control comparison but also polyps versus control and prospective studies of surgical effects, CRC staging and comparisons of CRC with other cancers. With this systematic review, we identified up to 244 compounds in urine samples (3 shared compounds between the volatilome and metabolome), and 10 of them were relevant in more than three articles. In the meta-analysis, nine studies met the criteria for inclusion, and the results combining the case-control and the pre-/post-surgery groups, eleven compounds were found to be relevant. Four upregulated metabolites were identified, 3-hydroxybutyric acid, L-dopa, L-histidinol, and N1, N12-diacetylspermine and seven downregulated compounds were identified, pyruvic acid, hydroquinone, tartaric acid, and hippuric acid as metabolites and butyraldehyde, ether, and 1,1,6-trimethyl-1,2-dihydronaphthalene as volatiles.

Indexed as

colorectal cancermeta-analysismetabolomicssystematic reviewurinevolatilomics

Identifiers

PMID34064065
PMCPMC8196698
OpenAlexW3165079735

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.