ArticlePloS one2022
Molecular and clinicopathological differences between depressed and protruded T2 colorectal cancer.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Role of CDX2 in the prognosis of colorectal cancer across stages 0-IV.Oncology letters · 2026Article
- Predictive value of a mesenchymal phenotype grading system combining tumor budding and FRMD6 expression for disease-free survival in colorectal carcinomas.Indian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) can be classified into four consensus molecular subtypes (CMS) according to genomic aberrations and gene expression profiles. CMS is expected to be useful in predicting prognosis and selecting chemotherapy regimens. However, there are still no reports on the relationship between the morphology and CMS.
methodsThis retrospective study included 55 subjects with T2 CRC undergoing surgical resection, of whom 30 had the depressed type and 25 the protruded type. In the classification of the CMS, we first defined cases with deficient mismatch repair as CMS1. And then, CMS2/3 and CMS4 were classified using an online classifier developed by Trinh et al. The staining intensity of CDX2, HTR2B, FRMD6, ZEB1, and KER and the percentage contents of CDX2, FRMD6, and KER are input into the classifier to obtain automatic output classifying the specimen as CMS2/3 or CMS4.
resultsAccording to the results yielded by the online classifier, of the 30 depressed-type cases, 15 (50%) were classified as CMS2/3 and 15 (50%) as CMS4. Of the 25 protruded-type cases, 3 (12%) were classified as CMS1 and 22 (88%) as CMS2/3. All of the T2 CRCs classified as CMS4 were depressed CRCs. More malignant pathological findings such as lymphatic invasion were associated with the depressed rather than protruded T2 CRC cases.
conclusionsDepressed-type T2 CRC had a significant association with CMS4, showing more malignant pathological findings such as lymphatic invasion than the protruded-type, which could explain the reported association between CMS4 CRC and poor prognosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.