Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36269458›Full record

ReviewCurrent treatment options in oncology2022

Understanding Cancer Cachexia and Its Implications in Upper Gastrointestinal Cancers.

Leo R Brown, Barry J A Laird, Stephen J Wigmore, Richard J E Skipworth

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current treatment options in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Physical Activity, Exerkines, and Their Role in Cancer Cachexia.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Leo R BrownClinical Surgery, University of Edinburgh, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, EH16 4SA, UK. leorbrown@doctors.org.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-6181-7020
Barry J A LairdInstitute of Genetics and Cancer, University of Edinburgh, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, Scotland, EH4 2XU, UK.
Stephen J WigmoreClinical Surgery, University of Edinburgh, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, EH16 4SA, UK.
Richard J E SkipworthClinical Surgery, University of Edinburgh, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, EH16 4SA, UK.
Edinburgh Royal Infirmary · GBWestern General Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

opinion statementConsiderable advances in the investigation and management of oesophagogastric cancer have occurred over the last few decades. While the historically dismal prognosis associated with these diseases has improved, outcomes remain very poor. Cancer cachexia is an often neglected, yet critical, factor for this patient group. There is a persuasive argument that a lack of assessment and treatment of cachexia has limited progress in oesophagogastric cancer care. In the curative setting, the stage of the host (based on factors such as body composition, function, and inflammatory status), alongside tumour stage, has the potential to influence treatment efficacy. Phenotypical features of cachexia may decrease the survival benefit of (peri-operative) chemoradiotherapy, immunotherapy, or surgical resection in patients with potentially curative malignancy. Most patients with oesophagogastric cancer unfortunately present with disease which is not amenable, or is unlikely to respond, to these treatments. In the palliative setting, host factors can similarly impair results from systemic anti-cancer therapies, cause adverse symptoms, and reduce quality of life. To optimise treatment pathways and enhance patient outcomes, we must utilise this information during clinical decision-making. As our understanding of the genesis of cancer cachexia improves and more therapeutic options, ranging from basic (e.g. exercise and nutrition) to targeted (e.g. anti-IL1 α and anti-GDF-15), become available, there can be grounds for optimism. Cachexia can change from a hitherto neglected condition to an integral part of the oesophagogastric cancer treatment pathway.

Indexed as

Gastrointestinal NeoplasmsNeoplasmsCachexiaHumansPrognosisQuality of LifeTreatment OutcomeBody compositionCachexiaCatabolismGastric cancerMuscle-wastingOesophageal cancerOesophagogastric cancerUpper gastrointestinal cancerWeight loss

Identifiers

PMID36269458
PMCPMC9768000
OpenAlexW4307033243

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.