1999
DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1096-9896(199901)187:1<61::aid-path247>3.0.co;2-i
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Field cancerization, clonality, and epithelial stem cells: the spread of mutated clones in epithelial sheets

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

4
86
0
1

Year Published

2001
2001
2010
2010

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 150 publications
(91 citation statements)
references
References 213 publications
4
86
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…A large body of evidence indicates that these parameters may be considered to be reliable premalignant lesions (6,9,14). Thus, our results support to the proposed assumption that colorectal carcinogenesis is at least partially prevented by colonic denervation.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…A large body of evidence indicates that these parameters may be considered to be reliable premalignant lesions (6,9,14). Thus, our results support to the proposed assumption that colorectal carcinogenesis is at least partially prevented by colonic denervation.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
“…In some cases the mutated clones, once established, spread through the tissues before becoming overtly invasive. There may be instances where such clones expand and remain cohesive, often involving a large tissue area, a phenomenon also called field cancerization (9). The present findings lead us to hypothesize that the action of neuropeptides could leave the denervated colonic mucosa less responsive to the action of chemical carcinogens and thus less favorable to the development of tumors.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 67%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…An important aspect to be considered in clonal mutation is at what stage in the life-history of the tumor it is examined (17). It may progress from an early polyclonal reactive stage into a monoclonal expansion.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%