Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39043872›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Clinical oncology2024

Spatial landscapes of cancers: insights and opportunities.

Julia Chen, Ludvig Larsson, Alexander Swarbrick, Joakim Lundeberg

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Clinical oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 93 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
93citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

93 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

33 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors.

Julia ChenCancer Ecosystems Program, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Ludvig LarssonDepartment of Gene Technology, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Science for Life Laboratory, Stockholm, Sweden.
Alexander SwarbrickCancer Ecosystems Program, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. a.swarbrick@garvan.org.au.
Joakim LundebergDepartment of Gene Technology, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Science for Life Laboratory, Stockholm, Sweden. joakim.lundeberg@scilifelab.se.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Solid tumours comprise many different cell types organized in spatially structured arrangements, with substantial intratumour and intertumour heterogeneity. Advances in spatial profiling technologies over the past decade hold promise to capture the complexity of these cellular architectures to build a holistic view of the intricate molecular mechanisms that shape the tumour ecosystem. Some of these mechanisms act at the cellular scale and are controlled by cell-autonomous programmes or communication between nearby cells, whereas other mechanisms result from coordinated efforts between large networks of cells and extracellular molecules organized into tissues and organs. In this Review we provide insights into the application of single-cell and spatial profiling tools, with a focus on spatially resolved transcriptomic tools developed to understand the cellular architecture of the tumour microenvironment and identify opportunities to use them to improve clinical management of cancers.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsTumor MicroenvironmentGene Expression ProfilingHumansSingle-Cell AnalysisTranscriptome

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.