Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34843402›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology2022

Minggui Pan, Chen Jiang, Pam Tse, Ninah Achacoso, Stacey Alexeeff, Aleyda V Solorzano, Elaine Chung, Wenwei Hu, Thach-Giao Truong, Amit Arora and 4 more

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

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

14 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Minggui PanDepartment of Oncology and Hematology, Kaiser Permanente, Santa Clara, CA.ORCID 0000-0002-8368-6524
Chen JiangDivision of Research, Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, CA.ORCID 0000-0002-0336-4518
Pam TseDivision of Research, Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, CA.
Ninah AchacosoDivision of Research, Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, CA.
Stacey AlexeeffDivision of Research, Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, CA.
Aleyda V SolorzanoDivision of Research, Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, CA.
Elaine ChungDivision of Research, Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, CA.
Wenwei HuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers, State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ.
Thach-Giao TruongDepartment of Oncology and Hematology, Kaiser Permanente, Vallejo, CA.
Amit AroraDepartment of Oncology and Hematology, Kaiser Permanente, Fremont, CA.
Tilak SundaresanDepartment of Oncology and Hematology, Kaiser Permanente, San Francisco, CA.
Jennifer Marie SugaDepartment of Oncology and Hematology, Kaiser Permanente, Vallejo, CA.
Sachdev ThomasDepartment of Oncology and Hematology, Kaiser Permanente, Vallejo, CA.
Laurel A HabelDivision of Research, Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, CA.
Kaiser Permanente · USKaiser Permanente Vallejo Medical Center · USKaiser Permanente San Francisco Medical Center · USRutgers, The State University of New Jersey · US

Funding

Gain-of-function mutant p53 and metabolic reprogramming in colorectal cancerR01CA260837 · NCI · RUTGERS BIOMEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES · PI FENG, ZHAOHUI, HU, WENWEI · 2021 to 2025
$2.2M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA260837
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo examine the association of gain-of-function (GOF) and non-gain-of-function (non-GOF)

methodsThis cohort study included patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) who had next-generation sequencing performed from November 2017 to January 2021. We defined R175H, R248W, R248Q, R249S, R273H, R273L, and R282W as GOF and all other mutp53 as non-GOF. We used Cox regression modeling to examine the association between GOF and non-GOF mutp53 and overall survival (OS), adjusting for age, sex, ethnicity, performance status, Charlson comorbidity index and receipt of chemotherapy.

resultsOf total 1,043 patients, 735 had tumors with mutp53 and 308 had wild-type p53 (wtp53). GOF was associated with worse OS than non-GOF mutp53 only in LCC (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.66 [95% CI, 1.20 to 2.29]), but not in RCC (HR = 0.79 [95% CI, 0.49 to 1.26]). Importantly, RCC was associated with worse OS than LCC only in the subset of patients whose CRC carried non-GOF (HR = 1.76 [95% CI, 1.30 to 2.39]), but not GOF mutp53 (HR = 0.92 [95% CI, 0.55 to 1.53]) or wtp53 (HR = 0.88 [95% CI, 0.60 to 1.28]). These associations were largely unchanged after also adjusting for RAS, BRAF, and PIK3CA mutations, and microsatellite instability-high.

conclusionPoorer survival of patients with metastatic RCC versus LCC appeared to be restricted to the subset with non-GOF mutp53, whereas GOF versus non-GOF mutp53 was associated with poorer survival only among patients with LCC. This approach of collectively classifying mutp53 into GOF and non-GOF provides new insight for prognostic stratification and for understanding the mechanism of sidedness-dependent prognosis. If confirmed, future CRC clinical trials may benefit from incorporating this approach.

Indexed as

Gain of Function MutationAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBiomarkers, TumorCaliforniaColorectal NeoplasmsDatabases, FactualDNA Mutational AnalysisFemaleHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm MetastasisNeoplasm StagingBiomarkers, TumorTP53 protein, humanTumor Suppressor Protein p53

Identifiers

PMID34843402
PMCPMC8718185
OpenAlexW3216044507

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.