ArticleMolecular medicine (Cambridge, Mass.)2016
The prognostic yield of biomarkers harvested in chemotherapy-naive stage II colon cancer: can we separate the wheat from the chaff?
Article in Molecular medicine (Cambridge, Mass.), 2016. 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.
- Immune cell dynamics and prognostic role of M2 macrophages and LDOC1 in colon adenocarcinoma.Discover oncology · 2025Article
- Effect of Adjuvant Chemotherapy on Stage II Colon Cancer: Analysis of Korean National Data.Cancer research and treatment · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The TNM-system fails to accurately predict disease recurrence in a considerate number of patients. While node-negative (stage II) colon cancer is considered to have an overall good prognosis, the 5-year cancer-specific survival is reported at 81-83% in patients who did not have adjuvant chemotherapy. Thus, reliance on node-status alone has lead to under-treatment in a subgroup of stage II patients with an unfavorable prognosis. The search for new and better prognosticators in stage II colon cancer has suggested several proposed biomarkers of better prognostication and prediction. However, few such biomarkers have reached widespread clinical utility. For the clinician swimming in the sea of emerging biomarkers, it may be hard to recognize the true floating aid from the surrounding debris in the search for more precise decision-making. Proposed markers include microsatellite instability (MSI), KRAS mutations and BRAF mutations, but a number of gene panels and consensus molecular subtypes are proposed for clinical prediction and prognostication as well. While several studies suggest such biomarkers or panels to have a prognostic role in subgroups of patients, a number of studies are reported in heterogeneous groups with in part discordant findings, which again distorts the predictive and prognostic ability of each marker. Lack of homogeneous cohorts, underpowered studies in strict subgroups and challenges in analytical and clinical validity may hamper the progress towards widespread clinical utility. The harvest of prognostic biomarkers in colon cancer has yielded a huge number of candidates for which it is now time to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.