Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24487792›Full record

ReviewVirchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology2014

Gene expression profiling in patients with carcinoma of unknown primary site: from translational research to standard of care.

John D Hainsworth, F Anthony Greco

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. SEOM-GECOD clinical guideline for cancer of unknown primary (update 2025).Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Guideline
  2. SEOM clinical guideline on unknown primary cancer (2017).Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2018
    Guideline
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Molecular Pathology of Lung Cancer.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine · 2022
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Genomic profiling in oncology clinical practice.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2020
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
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.

John D HainsworthSarah Cannon Research Institute, 3322 West End Avenue, Suite 900, Nashville, TN, USA, jhainsworth@tnonc.com.
F Anthony Greco

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Carcinoma of unknown primary site (CUP) is diagnosed in approximately 3 % of patients with advanced cancer, and most patients have traditionally been treated with empiric chemotherapy. As treatments improve and become more specific for individual solid tumor types, therapy with a single empiric combination chemotherapy regimen becomes increasingly inadequate. Gene expression profiling (GEP) is a new diagnostic method that allows prediction of the site of tumor origin based on gene expression patterns retained from the normal tissues of origin. In blinded studies in tumors of known origin, GEP assays correctly identified the site of origin in 85 % of cases and compares favorably with immunohistochemical (IHC) staining. In patients with CUP, GEP is able to predict a site of origin in >95 % of patients versus 35-55 % for IHC staining. Although confirmation of the accuracy of these predictions is difficult, the diagnoses made by IHC staining and GEP are identical in 77 % of cases when IHC staining predicts a single primary site. GEP diagnoses appear to be most useful when IHC staining is inconclusive. Site-specific treatment of CUP patients based on GEP and/or IHC predictions appears to improve overall outcomes; patients predicted to have treatment-sensitive tumor types derived the most benefit. GEP adds to the diagnostic evaluation of patients with CUP and should be included when IHC staining is unable to predict a single site of origin. Site-specific treatment, based on tissue of origin diagnosis, should replace empiric chemotherapy in patients with CUP.

Indexed as

Gene Expression ProfilingImmunohistochemistryBiomarkers, TumorCarcinomaFemaleHumansMaleMicroarray AnalysisNeoplasms, Unknown PrimaryRetrospective StudiesStandard of CareTranslational Research, BiomedicalBiomarkers, 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.