Cited by 203Colorectal Cancer Treatments and StudiesColorectal Cancer Surgical TreatmentsGenetic factors in colorectal cancer

Clinical value of consensus molecular subtypes in colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
ten Hoorn, Sanne, de Back, Tim R, Sommeijer, Dirkje W, Vermeulen, Louis·2022·JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Abstract

Background: The consensus molecular subtypes (CMSs) of colorectal cancer (CRC) capture tumor heterogeneity at the gene-expression level. Currently, a restricted number of molecular features are used to guide treatment for CRC. We summarize the evidence on the clinical value of the CMSs. Methods: We systematically identified studies in Medline and Embase that evaluated the prognostic and predictive value of CMSs in CRC patients. A random-effect meta-analysis was performed on prognostic data. Predictive data were summarized. Results: In local disease, CMS4 tumors were associated with worse overall survival (OS) compared with CMS1 (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.28, 95% confidence interval = 1.27 to 8.47) and CMS2 cancers (HR = 2.60, 95% confidence interval = 1.93 to 3.50). In metastatic disease, CMS1 consistently had worse survival than CMS2-4 (OS HR range = 0.33-0.55; progression-free survival HR range = 0.53-0.89). Adjuvant chemotherapy in stage II and III CRC was most beneficial for OS in CMS2 and CMS3 (HR range = 0.16-0.45) and not effective in CMS4 tumors. In metastatic CMS4 cancers, an irinotecan-based regimen improved outcome compared with oxaliplatin (HR range = 0.31-0.72). The addition of bevacizumab seemed beneficial in CMS1, and anti-epidermal growth factor receptor therapy improved outcome for KRAS wild-type CMS2 patients. Conclusions: The CMS classification holds clear potential for clinical use in predicting both prognosis and response to systemic therapy, which seems to be independent of the classifier used. Prospective studies are warranted to support implementation of the CMS taxonomy in clinical practice.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/jnci/djab106

Cites

107 of 107 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [110]Sirinukunwattana K, Domingo E, Richman SD, et al Image-based consensus molecular subtype (imCMS) classification of colorectal cancer using deep learning. Gut. 2021; 70(3): 544– 554. doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2019-319866. 32690604 PMC7873419 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
ten Hoorn, S., de Back, T. R., Sommeijer, D. W., & Vermeulen, L.
Affiliations
  • Amsterdam University Medical Centers (UMC), University of Amsterdam, Lab. for Experimental Oncology and Radiobiology, Center for Experimental and Molecular Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
  • Flevoziekenhuis (NL)
  • Amsterdam University Medical Centers (NL)
Corresponding author
Vermeulen, Louis
Venue
JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
Published
2021-06-02
Volume
114
Issue
4
Pages
503-516
ISSN
  • 0027-8874 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2105
OpenAlex
W3165521652
Cited by
203
References
107
Citations by year
2026: 44 · 2025: 42 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 47 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 4
FWCI
3.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Oncode Institute, the Dutch Cancer Society (KWF 10529)
  • European Research Council (ERG-StG 638193)
  • ZonMw (Vidi 016.156.308)
  • Innovatiefonds Zorgverzekeraars (B17-140)
  • New York Stem Cell Foundation—Robertson Investigator
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Genetic factors in colorectal cancer
Keywords
consensus molecular subtypes, colorectal cancer, prognostic value, predictive value, overall survival, progression-free survival, adjuvant chemotherapy, irinotecan, oxaliplatin, bevacizumab, anti-EGFR therapy, KRAS wild-type, metastatic colorectal cancer, stage II and III colorectal cancer, tumor heterogeneity
MeSH terms
Bevacizumab, Oxaliplatin, Humans, Prognosis, Biomarkers, Tumor, Colorectal Neoplasms, Consensus Sequence, Gene Expression Profiling

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review