Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21862978›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Clinical oncology2011

Predictive biomarkers: a paradigm shift towards personalized cancer medicine.

Nicholas B La Thangue, David J Kerr

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 143 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
143citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

143 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Insulin-like growth factor receptor signaling in physiology and disease.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2026
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

83 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Nicholas B La ThangueLaboratory of Cancer Biology, Department of Clinical Pharmacology, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus Research Building, Old Road Campus, Oxford OX3 7DQ, UK. nick.lathangue@clinpharm.ox.ac.uk
David J Kerr

Funding

Medical Research Council G1000807
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Advances in our understanding of the intricate molecular mechanisms for transformation of a normal cell to a cancer cell, and the aberrant control of complementary pathways, have presented a much more complex set of challenges for the diagnostic and therapeutic disciplines than originally appreciated. The oncology field has entered an era of personalized medicine where treatment selection for each cancer patient is becoming individualized or customized. This advance reflects the molecular and genetic composition of the tumors and progress in biomarker technology, which allow us to align the most appropriate treatment according to the patient's disease. There is a worldwide acceptance that advances in our ability to identify predictive biomarkers and provide them as companion diagnostics for stratifying and subgrouping patients represents the next leap forward in improving the quality of clinical care in oncology. As such, we are progressing from a population-based empirical 'one drug fits all' treatment model, to a focused personalized approach where rational companion diagnostic tests support the drug's clinical utility by identifying the most responsive patient subgroup.

Indexed as

BiomarkersHumansNeoplasmsPharmaceutical PreparationsPharmacogeneticsPrecision MedicineBiomarkersPharmaceutical Preparations

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.