ArticleClinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico2013
Has discovery-based cancer research been a bust?
Article in Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The unpluggable in pursuit of the undruggable: tackling the dark matter of the cancer therapeutics universe.Frontiers in oncology · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The completion of the human genome sequence sparked optimism about prospects for new anticancer drug development, but clinical progress over the last decade has proven slower than expected. Here it is proposed that unrealistically high expectations of first-generation discovery-based diagnostics have contributed to this problem. Hypothesis-based single-molecule tests (e.g., mutation screening of KRAS, EGFR, BRAF or KIT genes) continue to change clinical practice incrementally, whereas first-generation multiplex assays--such as gene expression profiling and proteomics--have identified few high-impact therapeutic targets despite numerous correlations with prognosis. To move forward, second-generation multiplex diagnostics should be based not on statistical patterns/associations alone, but on clinically interpretable ('high-signal-to-noise') data such as change-of-function mutations, gene amplifications, recurrent chromosomal anomalies, and abnormal phosphorylation profiles of ERK or mTOR signaling cascades.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24002944What 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.