ReviewFrontiers in oncology2025
Global research landscape of antiangiogenic therapy for colorectal cancer: a bibliometric analysis of mechanistic insights and clinical advancements.
Review in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Global trends, knowledge structure, and thematic evolution of statin-cancer research: A comprehensive mapping and visualization study with insights from highly cited literature (1940-2025).Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Review
- Loss of GGT6 promotes colorectal cancer progression and correlates with poor prognosis: a study based on multi-database mining and functional validation.Translational cancer research · 2026Article
- Bibliometric analysis of anti-angiogenic therapy in gastric cancer: research hotspots, trends, and emerging frontiers.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major global health issue, with over 1.9 million diagnoses yearly and low survival rates in advanced stages. Antiangiogenic therapies (AAT) targeting VEGF and VEGFR have improved outcomes, but resistance mechanisms limit their effectiveness. This study uses bibliometric analysis to link mechanistic insights, such as VEGF splicing variants, with clinical developments, identify global collaboration trends, and propose strategies to reduce resistance and toxicity in treatments. Methods: This study were used to search the Web of Science databases Core Collection. Studies published in English from 1996 to 2024 were included for analysis. VOSviewer 1.6.20, CiteSpace 6.4.R1, and R 4.4.1 were employed for bibliometric analysis and visualization. Results: This bibliometric analysis of 976 publications from 1996 to 2024 shows a 13.65% annual growth rate in CRC antiangiogenic research. China leads with 20.5% of publications, followed by the USA at 15.7% and Japan at 13.1%. Key institutions include Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, and notable journals are BMC Cancer and Clinical Colorectal Cancer. Keyword evolution reflects a shift from angiogenesis mechanisms to clinical validation of treatments like FOLFIRI with bevacizumab, with a current focus on tumor microenvironment reprogramming and precision survival analytics (2020-2024, burst intensity 6.66). Key milestones include Phase III trials like AVF2107g and ctDNA-guided strategies, along with emerging dual-target inhibitors. Conclusion: This bibliometric analysis reveals a shift from VEGF studies to precision strategies targeting tumor microenvironments, influenced by trials like TRIBE and PARADIGM. Future efforts should focus on multi-omics integration and innovative delivery systems like circadian-targeted nanoparticles for personalized CRC care.
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.