Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21502993›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Clinical oncology2011

Rethinking the metastatic cascade as a therapeutic target.

Lida A Mina, George W Sledge

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Clinical oncology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

59 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. ACS medicinal chemistry letters · 2022
    Article
  9. Drug Sensitivity Testing for Cancer Therapy, Key Areas.Reviews on recent clinical trials · 2022
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

2 authors.

Lida A MinaDepartment of Hematology/Oncology, Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indiana Cancer Pavilion, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA. lmina@iupui.edu
George W Sledge

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Metastasis is the leading cause of cancer death. The metastatic cascade is a complex yet inefficient process that we have only begun to understand in recent years. Several of the early steps of this cascade are not readily targetable in the clinic. Past therapeutic developmental strategies have not distinguished between micrometastases and overt metastases. This lack of understanding is apparent in therapies that have been developed for patients with metastatic disease that are not efficacious in patients with micrometastatic disease; that is, in the adjuvant setting. Moreover, drugs that target distant metastases often do not work in the adjuvant setting. This Review will discuss our current understanding of the metastatic cascade as it relates to therapy, emerging therapeutic targets in the metastatic process, and how novel antimetastatic therapies might be developed for clinical use.

Indexed as

AnimalsAntineoplastic AgentsBiomarkers, TumorHumansNeoplasm MetastasisNeoplasmsAntineoplastic AgentsBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.