ReviewNature reviews. Clinical oncology2011
The inverted pyramid of biomarker-driven trials.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Growth Modulation Index (GMI) as an Efficacy Outcome in Cancer Clinical Trials: A Scoping Review with Suggested Reporting Guidelines.Current oncology reports · 2025Article
- Personalized and precision medicine: integrating genomics into treatment decisions in gastrointestinal malignancies.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2017Review
- Article
- Testing for oncogenic molecular aberrations in cell-free DNA-based liquid biopsies in the clinic: are we there yet?Expert review of molecular diagnostics · 2015Review
- Article
- Aberrations in the epidermal growth factor receptor gene in 958 patients with diverse advanced tumors: implications for therapy.Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology · 2013Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the past, clinical phase I trials often suffered from low response rates and inadequate experimental drug doses. Over the past decade, however, phase I trials have evolved from simple dose-finding studies to trials that might provide clinically relevant therapeutic opportunities for patients with advanced-stage cancer for which no standard therapies are available. In the future, the routine use of modern technologies such as large-scale genome sequencing will help to unravel the specific biology of a patient's cancer. Such tools will expand our knowledge about genetic aberrations and might provide opportunities for the development of novel, molecular targeted therapies for patients with refractory cancer. Increasingly, the focus will likely turn from carrying out large randomized trials in unselected patients to conducting smaller biomarker-driven trials in selected patients with known molecular aberrations. We expect that these new strategies will enhance response rates as appropriate patients are targeted, therefore sparing those patients who are unlikely to benefit.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21808269What 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.