ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
The effects of two combined methods of P53 expression and preoperative serum CEA detection on the prognosis of colorectal cancer.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. 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
- Tumor-Associated Autoantibodies Anti-p53 is Associated with Poor Prognosis in Patients with Lung Adenocarcinoma.Cancer management and research · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: To explore the effects of two combined methods-P53 expression and preoperative serum carcinoembryonic antigen (S-CEA) detection-on the prognosis of colorectal cancer (CRC). Methods: Two classified combinations of tissue P53 and S-CEA were utilized: Combined P53 groups (normal P53 and S-CEA, or one or both elevated) and Recombined groups (P53 normal & S-CEA normal, P53 normal & S-CEA high, P53 high & S-CEA normal, P53 high & S-CEA high). Clinicopathologic features were analyzed by P53, S-CEA, Combined P53, and Recombined P53. Correlations between them were examined. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method and Log-Rank test. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed for Combined P53 and Recombined P53 to determine independent factors. Three-year, two-year, and one-year OS and DFS were further analyzed using multimeROC. SPSS 27 and R 4.4.1 were used for analysis. Results: TNM stage, CA199, differentiation, tumor maximum size, and minimum size showed significant differences between the single P53 and S-CEA groups (all P < 0.05). TNM stage, CA199, and chemotherapy differed in both Combined P53 and Recombined P53 groups (all P < 0.05). Significant correlations were found between P53, S-CEA, Combined P53, and Recombined P53 (all P < 0.001). No significant differences in OS and DFS were observed with P53 and Combined P53 (all P > 0.05), but differences were noted with S-CEA and Recombined P53 (all P < 0.05). Univariate and multivariate analyses identified laparoscopy, chemotherapy, differentiation, TNM stage, and Recombined P53 as independent factors for OS and DFS, while P53, S-CEA, and Combined P53 were not. Further multimeROC analysis showed that 3-year OS had better sensitivity and specificity (Area Under Curve [AUC] = 0.54), and 1-year DFS was better (AUC = 0.59). Conclusions: Recombined P53 classification was more effective than traditional Combined P53 classification for assessing CRC prognosis and was an independent factor. Additionally, the 3-year OS and 1-year DFS analysis demonstrated higher sensitivity and specificity with Recombined P53.
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.