ReviewInternational journal of molecular sciences2026
Screening, Prognostic, and Predictive Molecular Tools for Colorectal Cancer: Recent Advances in the Classical Background.
Review in International journal of molecular sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring the Role of HSD17B2 in Colorectal Cancer Through Bioinformatic Analysis: Preliminary Insights for Prognostic Evaluation.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- TET Enzymes as Epigenetic Integrators in Intestinal Immunity, Inflammation, and Disease.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- John Cunningham Virus and Colorectal Carcinogenesis: Current Evidence, Molecular Mechanisms, and Unresolved Controversies.Reviews in medical virology · 2026Review
- Immunotherapy resistance in colorectal cancer: therapeutic strategies and biomarker-guided approaches.Cancer cell international · 2026Review
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
Abstract
Colorectal cancer (CRC) continues to represent a substantial worldwide health burden. Accurate risk classification and early detection have a significant impact on prognosis. There is still a significant percentage of patients who are diagnosed at advanced stages, notwithstanding the progress that has been made in screening and treatment. Thus, improved molecular tools that encompass the biological complexity of CRC are needed. High-throughput technologies have expanded the biomarker array for CRC screening, prognosis, and therapeutic prediction. This review summarizes evidence on established and emerging molecular tools from tumor tissue, blood, and stool samples, such as DNA mutations, methylation markers, RNA signatures, circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA), extracellular vesicles, and multi-omic composite assays. These provide alternatives to conventional approaches that are relatively less invasive and more sensitive. Prognostic biomarkers-such as RAS, BRAF, HER2 alterations, mismatch repair deficiency, tumor mutational burden, methylation signatures, and non-coding RNAs-provide insight into tumor behavior and recurrence risk. To guide targeted therapies, immunotherapies, and chemotherapy response, predictive biomarkers such as RAS/BRAF mutations, HER2 amplification, MSI-H/dMMR status, POLE/POLD1 mutations, DNA methylation panels, miRNAs, lncRNAs, and liquid biopsy markers are crucial. Emerging technologies such as multi-omics, AI-enhanced biomarker discovery, and novel liquid biopsy components (evDNA, circRNAs) pave the way to precision oncology. These molecular tools have the potential to change how CRC is managed by earlier detection and more precise predictive biomarkers. However, large-scale validation and clinical standardization are still crucial for their extensive utilization.
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.