Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24243164›Full record

ReviewCurrent treatment options in oncology2013

Overview of various techniques/platforms with critical evaluation of each.

Eberechi Agwa, Patrick C Ma

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current treatment options in oncology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 38% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Eberechi AgwaDepartment of Solid Tumor Oncology, Translational Hematology and Oncology Research, Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
Patrick C Ma
Cleveland Clinic · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

opinion statementPatients with cancer of unknown primary are common and can present in a variety of ways with different histological features. Despite best clinical effort in pretreatment diagnostic workup, many patients classified as having cancer of unknown primary (CUP) often are still left with no definitive diagnosis of the primary organ or tissue of origin to account for the metastatic disease. Whereas advances in immunohistochemical techniques have improved the diagnostic yield to some extent, the challenges remain substantial for most patients with CUP in whom initial therapy is typically chosen empirically. In recent years, development of molecular gene profiling of tumor offers new possibilities to better characterize, diagnose, and classify the tissue of origin of various metastatic CUP to better inform optimal therapy. The premise behind the development of improved diagnostic tools to better diagnose the organ or tissue of origin for metastatic disease of unknown primary is that an organ/tissue-specific tailored therapy of choice would favorably impact the treatment outcome. There are now three commercially available molecular profiling platforms for the purpose of diagnosing the tissue of origin in the otherwise CUP patients: 1) bioTheranostics: Cancer TYPE ID® (qRT-PCR for mRNA); 2) Pathworks®: Tissue of origin test (microarray for mRNA expression); and 3) Rosetta Genomics-Prometheus: miRview™ mets (ProOnc Tumor SourceDxT) (qRT-PCR for microRNA). Whereas these are new technologic platforms that offer new promise for better diagnostics and perhaps better therapeutic strategies in cancer therapy, each of the platforms has its own strengths and limitations due to their test of choice and assay source materials and technical platform itself. However, a fundamental question that needs be further addressed regarding the utility of these novel molecular profiling assays is whether they represent more superior approaches than genomic profiling assays using rapidly emerging cancer genomics next-generation sequencing (NSG) platforms. Because cancer is nowadays understood as genomic disease, the genomic alterations (e.g., mutations, copy number variations, chromosomal translocations, splicing variants) may offer more important insights into the cancer pathogenesis. More importantly, these genomic information may be more relevant in guiding personalized/precision cancer therapy than merely empiric chemotherapy based on tissue/organ-of-origin information. Ideally, further comparative studies and demonstration of utilities would be needed and eagerly anticipated to determine which diagnostic approach ultimately could impact the clinical outcome of patients with CUP.

Indexed as

Diagnostic ImagingFemaleGene Expression ProfilingGene Expression Regulation, NeoplasticHumansImmunohistochemistryMaleMicroarray AnalysisNeoplasms, Unknown PrimaryPredictive Value of TestsSurvival Analysis

Identifiers

PMID24243164
OpenAlexW2046070952

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.