ArticleOncology letters2025
Analysis and exploration of the association between serum tumor marker status and clinical pathological features, as well as efficacy, in colorectal cancer.
Article in Oncology letters, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a major global health challenge, necessitating improved prognostic and predictive tools. The aim of the present study was to investigate the associations between elevated serum tumor markers (TMs) and clinicopathological features in patients with colorectal cancer, to evaluate their prognostic ability in advanced-stage disease cases and to identify patients most likely to respond to treatment. This retrospective study analyzed data from 293 patients treated for colorectal adenocarcinoma between January 1, 2020, and June 30, 2023. Carcinoembryonic antigen and cancer antigen (CA)19-9, CA72-4 and CA125 positivity were evaluated to classify patients into negative, single elevation (higher expression than normal in 1 TM) and multiple elevation (≥2 TMs expressed at higher than normal levels) groups. Clinical characteristics were evaluated using χ
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.