ReviewPathologie (Heidelberg, Germany)2026
[SARIFA: Literature review and expert opinion on the new morphological biomarker].
Review in Pathologie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
backgroundStroma areactive invasion front area (SARIFA) was recently defined and introduced as a histomorphological, prognostic biomarker for various carcinomas. QUESTION: Current state of research and prospects for future developments. Report on the results of the consensus meeting. MATERIALS AND
methodsEvaluation of the available literature and the results of the consensus meeting.
resultsSARIFA has been successfully established as a strong prognostic biomarker. Its advantages include rapid, almost cost-neutral determination and excellent low interobserver variability. SARIFA correlates with increased expression ofproteinases and lipid metabolism proteins and genes. The immune response, by contrast, is downregulated in SARIFA-positive tumours. The consensus experts confirm the prognostic relevance in gastric and colorectal carcinomas and advocate routine reporting. The role of the biological background should be investigated in further studies and the name should be reconsidered and, if necessary, adapted.
conclusionsSARIFA is a prognostically relevant and robust biomarker. The evidence is particularly strong for gastric and colorectal carcinomas.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41870546What 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.