Evidence mapPaperPMID 41781591Full record

ReviewMedical oncology (Northwood, London, England)2026

A different perspective on the cancer stem cell theory.

Arezu Karimpur-Zahmatkesh, Mohammad Khalaj-Kondori

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Arezu Karimpur-ZahmatkeshDepartment of Animal Biology, Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran.
Mohammad Khalaj-KondoriDepartment of Animal Biology, Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran. khalaj@tabrizu.ac.ir.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9231-889X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Increased recurrence risk, aggressiveness, metastasis, and poor prognosis of cancer disease are challenges of conventional cancer treatment strategies attributed to cancer stem cells (CSCs). These cells are primarily defined as a small number of cancer cells with stemness potency. They are known to be the potential cause of conventional anticancer therapy resistance, including chemo-radiotherapy or hormonal reagents that can self-renew, remain dormant for an extended period, and, in doing so, promote tumor growth. CSC's theory presents possible causes of disease relapse after successful conventional therapies. Removing these stem cells seems logical to optimize the outcomes of related therapeutic strategies. Comprehensively identifying the evolutionary path and biology of cancer cells and supposed CSCs can direct us towards appropriate management of the disease. In the current study, we discuss recent findings that present clues to reshape our understanding of cancer stem cell theory and portray a novel perspective on cancer cell evolution and potential cancer stem cells (CSCs). Although there is a need for more in-depth studies in this area, current theory can alter therapeutic options and disease control methods. It may lead to a revolution in oncology science.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsNeoplastic Stem CellsAnimalsHumansCancerCancer stem cellEvolutionary pathwayOriginTheory

Identifiers

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.