ReviewJournal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN2011
Personalized medicine and oncology practice guidelines: a case study of contemporary biomarkers in colorectal cancer.
Review in Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prediction of long-term recurrence-free and overall survival in early-onset colorectal cancer: the ENCORE multi-centre study.NPJ precision oncology · 2025Article
- Dysregulated Expression of Three Genes in Colorectal Cancer Stratifies Patients into Three Risk Groups.Cancers · 2022Article
- Review
- The role of the pathology department in the preanalytical phase of molecular analyses.Cancer management and research · 2018Article
- Article
- KRAS and BRAF gene mutations and DNA mismatch repair status in Chinese colorectal carcinoma patients.World journal of gastroenterology · 2015Article
- Prognostic value of Ki-67 expression in conversion therapy for colorectal liver-limited metastases.American journal of cancer research · 2015Article
- Clinical prognostic value of combined analysis of Aldh1, Survivin, and EpCAM expression in colorectal cancer.British journal of cancer · 2014Article
- Cancer genomic research at the crossroads: realizing the changing genetic landscape as intratumoral spatial and temporal heterogeneity becomes a confounding factor.Cancer cell international · 2014Article
- Validation of the 12-gene colon cancer recurrence score in NSABP C-07 as a predictor of recurrence in patients with stage II and III colon cancer treated with fluorouracil and leucovorin (FU/LV) and FU/LV plus oxaliplatin.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2013Article
- F-18 FDG PET/CT in the assessment of patients with unexplained CEA rise after surgical curative resection for colorectal cancer.International journal of colorectal disease · 2013Article
- Maspin is a marker for early recurrence in primary stage III and IV colorectal cancer.British journal of cancer · 2013Article
- Biologic determinants of tumor recurrence in stage II colon cancer: validation study of the 12-gene recurrence score in cancer and leukemia group B (CALGB) 9581.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2013Article
- Personalized medicine and cancer.Journal of personalized medicine · 2012Review
- Biomarkers, bundled payments, and colorectal cancer care.Genes & cancer · 2012Article
- Molecular preservation by extraction and fixation, mPREF: a method for small molecule biomarker analysis and histology on exactly the same tissue.BMC clinical pathology · 2011Article
- Potential of soluble CD26 as a serum marker for colorectal cancer detection.World journal of clinical oncology · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Predictive and prognostic biomarkers offer a potential means to personalize cancer medicine, although many reach the market-place before they have been validated, and their adoption is often hindered by variable clinical evidence. Because of this variability in supporting evidence, clinical practice guidelines formulated by panels of subspecialty experts may be particularly important in guiding stakeholders' acceptance and use of new personalized medicine biomarker tests and other nascent technologies. This article provides a structured review of the clinical evidence supporting 4 contemporary biomarker tests in colorectal cancer: K-ras and B-raf mutation analyses, mismatch repair protein testing, and the Oncotype DX Colon Cancer Assay. All 4 tests have been evaluated for guideline inclusion by the NCCN Guidelines Panel for Colon Cancer. This case study shows significant variability in the level of clinical evidence associated with these tests. In the cases of B-raf and mismatch repair protein testing, the available evidence is also inconsistent as it pertains to the specific NCCN Guideline recommendation. Based on this uncertainty in the evidence base, the authors conclude that expert clinical judgment, experience, and consensus may be more heavily weighted than published clinical trial data in the evaluation of new personalized medicine biomarker tests. Potential implications of this conclusion and future directions for research are discussed.
Indexed as
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.