ArticleThe EPMA journal2010
"First do no harm" and the importance of prediction in oncology.
Article in The EPMA journal, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- A data management system for precision medicine.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
- Persistent SARS-2 infections contribute to long COVID-19.Medical hypotheses · 2021Article
- Local Interleukin-2 Immunotherapy of Breast Cancer: Benefit and Risk in a Spontaneous Mouse Model.Pathology oncology research : POR · 2019Article
- Targeted therapies in colorectal cancer-an integrative view by PPPM.The EPMA journal · 2013Article
- Cancer immunotherapy: Benefit and harm?Oncoimmunology · 2012Article
- Review
- Birth asphyxia as the major complication in newborns: moving towards improved individual outcomes by prediction, targeted prevention and tailored medical care.The EPMA journal · 2011Article
- Does the "new philosophy" in predictive, preventive and personalised medicine require new ethics?The EPMA journal · 2011Article
- Cancer diagnostics and treatment: are we ready to implement PPPM?The EPMA journal · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Present cancer treatment strategies are based on the assumption that a therapy may work ("response") or not work ("no-response"). However, the existing evidence suggests that current cancer treatment modalities may also have a cancer-promoting effect in part of the patients. In this paper, some relevant data are reviewed suggesting that surgery, irradiation, chemotherapy and immunotherapy can stimulate tumor growth / metastatic spread and decrease survival of patients in certain subgroups. Thus, results of cancer treatment may be improved by detection and use of biomarkers that correlate with positive or negative therapeutic effects. Small trials based on groups with differing biomarkers rather than large phase III trials may aid the development and efficacy testing of new anticancer drugs. Moreover, ignoring biomarkers that correlate with positive or negative therapeutic effect may not be compatible anymore with the ethical principle "First Do No Harm".
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.