ReviewThe American journal of pathology1994
Experimental production of primitive neuroectodermal tumors and its relevance to human neuro-oncology.
Review in The American journal of pathology, 1994. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Liquid Biopsy and Primary Brain Tumors.Cancers · 2021Review
- Medulloblastoma: therapy and biologic considerations.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2006Review
- Primitive neuroectodermal tumors of the central nervous system.Brain pathology (Zurich, Switzerland) · 1997Review
- Dynamics of cell proliferation and cell death during the emergence of primitive neuroectodermal tumors of the immature central nervous system in transgenic mice.The American journal of pathology · 1995Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The origin and nature of central nervous system tumors primarily composed of primitive neuroepithelial cells have intrigued neuropathologists since 1925, when the prototype tumor in this group, the medulloblastoma, was defined as a specific type by Bailey and Cushing. Theories regarding this group of tumors have been widely divergent, ranging from classification as sarcomas, neuroblastomas, spongioblastomas, ie, poorly differentiated gliomas (including astrocytic, oligodendroglial, and ependymal), to primitive tumors with a capacity for multidirectional differentiation. Studies of both human and experimental primitive neuroectodermal tumors have yielded considerable information about biological features, although controversies remain regarding interpretation of the findings. Moreover, many investigators remain fixed upon the notion that discovery of the "cell of origin" of these tumors will somehow enhance understanding of their nature. Rationale for relevance of this view is examined against the current state of knowledge regarding carcinogenesis as a whole and studies of human and experimental primitive neuroectodermal tumors in particular, and it is concluded that the time has come to discard the archaic concept of cell of origin and devote resources to investigations of the phenotypic character of the tumor and its relationship to prognosis and treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
8129029PMC1887098W2259960117What 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.