Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32235902›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Cancer2020

Understanding cachexia in the context of metastatic progression.

Anup K Biswas, Swarnali Acharyya

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 118 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
118citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
10.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

118 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 200 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

58 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Anup K BiswasInstitute for Cancer Genetics, Department of Pathology and Cell Biology, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Swarnali AcharyyaInstitute for Cancer Genetics, Department of Pathology and Cell Biology, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. sa3141@cumc.columbia.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1922-6881
Cancer Genetics (United States) · USColumbia University Irving Medical Center · US

Funding

Tumor Biology and Microenvironment ProgramP30CA013696 · NCI · COLUMBIA UNIV NEW YORK MORNINGSIDE · PI Anil K Rustgi · 1985 to 2026
$115.3M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tumours reprogram host physiology, metabolism and immune responses during cancer progression. The release of soluble factors, exosomes and metabolites from tumours leads to systemic changes in distant organs, where cancer cells metastasize and grow. These tumour-derived circulating factors also profoundly impact tissues that are rarely inhabited by metastatic cancer cells such as skeletal muscle and adipose tissue. In fact, the majority of patients with metastatic cancer develop a debilitating muscle-wasting syndrome, known as cachexia, that is associated with decreased tolerance to antineoplastic therapy, poor prognosis and accelerated death, with no approved treatments. In this Perspective, we discuss the development of cachexia in the context of metastatic progression. We briefly discuss how circulating factors either directly or indirectly promote cachexia development and examine how signals from the metastatic process can trigger and amplify this process. Finally, we highlight promising therapeutic opportunities for targeting cachexia in the context of metastatic cancers.

Indexed as

AnimalsCachexiaDisease ProgressionHumansNeoplasm MetastasisNeoplasms

Identifiers

PMID32235902
OpenAlexW3014445498

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.