Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36202996›Full record

ArticleModern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc2022

CINSARC signature outperforms gold-standard TNM staging and consensus molecular subtypes for clinical outcome in stage II-III colorectal carcinoma.

Anne-Cécile Brunac, Joanna Fourquet, Gaëlle Perot, Marion Jaffrelot, Julie Meilleroux, Marie Danjoux, Thomas Filleron, Vincent Nicolaï, Rosine Guimbaud, Samira Icher and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
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

13 authors.

Anne-Cécile BrunacDepartment of Pathology, Institut Universitaire du Cancer-Oncopole de Toulouse, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU), Toulouse, France.ORCID 0000-0003-2741-1048
Joanna FourquetOncogenesis of Sarcomas, INSERM UMR1037, Cancer Research Centre of Toulouse, Toulouse, France.
Gaëlle PerotOncogenesis of Sarcomas, INSERM UMR1037, Cancer Research Centre of Toulouse, Toulouse, France.
Marion JaffrelotDepartment of Digestive Oncology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU), Toulouse, France.
Julie MeillerouxDepartment of Pathology, Institut Universitaire du Cancer-Oncopole de Toulouse, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU), Toulouse, France.
Marie DanjouxDepartment of Pathology, Institut Universitaire du Cancer-Oncopole de Toulouse, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU), Toulouse, France.
Thomas FilleronDepartment of Biostatistics, Institut Claudius-Regaud, Institut Universitaire du Cancer-Oncopole de Toulouse, Toulouse, France.
Vincent NicolaïDepartment of Medical Oncology, Institut Universitaire du Cancer-Oncopole de Toulouse, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU), Toulouse, France.
Rosine GuimbaudDepartment of Digestive Oncology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU), Toulouse, France.
Samira IcherDepartment of Pathology, Institut Universitaire du Cancer-Oncopole de Toulouse, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU), Toulouse, France.
Nadim FarésDepartment of Digestive Oncology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU), Toulouse, France.
Janick Selves *Department of Pathology, Institut Universitaire du Cancer-Oncopole de Toulouse, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU), Toulouse, France.
Frédéric Chibon *Oncogenesis of Sarcomas, INSERM UMR1037, Cancer Research Centre of Toulouse, Toulouse, France. frederic.chibon@inserm.fr.ORCID 0000-0002-6548-2181

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The outcome of stage II-III colorectal cancer (CRC) is highly variable and therapeutic choice is currently based on TNM staging with a few additional biomarkers. However, studies show that some stage III patients have a better prognosis than some stage II patients. A promising consensus molecular (CMS) classification with prognostic relevance has been developed, but it is not used in daily practice. Our team developed CINSARC, a 67-gene expression prognostic signature, whose prognostic value has been demonstrated in many cancer types. It is applicable to formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) blocks using NanoString® technology. We investigated whether it could predict outcome in stage II-III CRC. We established the CINSARC classification on the TCGA retrospective cohort comprising 297 stage II-III CRC patients using RNA sequencing and on a second independent cohort comprising 169 cases using NanoString® technology. We compared its recurrence-free and overall survival prognostic value with TNM staging and CMS classification. In the TCGA cohort, we showed that CINSARC significantly splits the population of stage II-III CRC into two groups with different progression-free interval (P = 1.68 × 10

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsBiomarkers, TumorHumansNeoplasm StagingPrognosisRetrospective StudiesTranscriptomeBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

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.