Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19843853›Full record

ArticleCancer research2009

Concordant gene expression signatures predict clinical outcomes of cancer patients undergoing systemic therapy.

Paul D Williams, Sooyoung Cheon, Dmytro M Havaleshko, Hyeon Jeong, Feng Cheng, Dan Theodorescu, Jae K Lee

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer research, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 82 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Pharmacogenomics in bladder cancer.Urologic oncology · 2014
    Review
  20. Article
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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Paul D WilliamsDepartment of Public Health Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22908, USA.
Sooyoung Cheon
Dmytro M Havaleshko
Hyeon Jeong
Feng Cheng
Dan Theodorescu
Jae K Lee
University of Virginia · US

Funding

Regulation and Targeting of CD24 in Bladder CancerR01CA075115 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA CHARLOTTESVILLE · PI THEODORESCU, DAN · 2003 to 2024
$7.0M
Genome Pathway Modeling Diabetic AtherosclerosisR01HL081690 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA · PI LEE, JAE K. · 2006 to 2010
$1.6M
Advanced Training for Leadership in Urology and Urological ResearchT32DK069264 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA · PI LYSIAK, JEFFREY J · 2007 to 2011
$592k
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA075115NCI NIH HHS R01CA075115NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL081690NHLBI NIH HHS R01HL081690NIDDK NIH HHS T32 DK069264NIDDK NIH HHS T32DK069264
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Conventional development of multivariate gene expression models (GEM) predicting therapeutic response of cancer patients is based on analysis of patients treated with specific regimens, which limits generalization to different or novel drug combinations. We overcome this limitation by developing GEMs based on in vitro drug sensitivities and microarray analyses of the NCI-60 cancer cell line panel. These GEMs were evaluated in blind fashion as predictors of tumor response and/or patient survival in seven independent cohorts of patients with breast (n = 275), bladder (n = 59), and ovarian (n= 143) cancer treated with multiagent chemotherapy, of which 233 patients were from prospectively enrolled clinical trials. In all studies, GEMs effectively stratified tumor response and patient survival independent of established clinical and pathologic tumor variables. In bladder cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant methotrexate, vinblastine, Adriamycin (doxorubicin), and cisplatin, the 3-year overall survival for those with favorable GEM scores was 81% versus 33% for those with less favorable scores (P = 0.002). GEMs for breast cancer patients treated with 5-fluorouracil, Adriamycin (doxorubicin), and cyclophosphamide and ovarian cancer patients treated with platinum-containing regimens also stratified patient survival [5-year overall survival 100% versus 74% (P = 0.05) and 3-year overall survival 68% versus 43% (P = 0.008), respectively]. Importantly, clinical prediction using our in vitro GEM was superior to that of conventionally derived GEMs. We show a facile yet effective approach to GEM derivation that identifies patients most likely to benefit from selected multiagent therapy. Use of such in vitro-based GEMs may provide a robust and generalizable approach to personalized cancer therapy.

Indexed as

Gene Expression ProfilingAlgorithmsAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMaleNeoadjuvant TherapyOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisOvarian NeoplasmsPrognosisProspective StudiesSurvival RateTreatment OutcomeTumor Cells, CulturedUrinary Bladder Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID19843853
PMCPMC2784269
OpenAlexW1969016700

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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 OpenQuestion graph.