ReviewNature reviews. Clinical oncology2014
European perspective for effective cancer drug development.
Review in Nature reviews. Clinical oncology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 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
20 citing papers in PubMed.
- Molecular profiling of advanced solid tumors and patient outcomes with genotype-matched clinical trials: the Princess Margaret IMPACT/COMPACT trial.Genome medicine · 2016Trial
- European screening platform for EORTC clinical trials in advanced colorectal cancer 'SPECTAcolor'.ESMO gastrointestinal oncology · 2025Article
- Aloperine targets lysosomes to inhibit late autophagy and induces cell death through apoptosis and paraptosis in glioblastoma.Molecular biomedicine · 2023Article
- Past, Current, and Future Cancer Clinical Research Collaborations: The Case of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer.Clinical and translational science · 2021Review
- The current state of molecular testing in the treatment of patients with solid tumors, 2019.CA: a cancer journal for clinicians · 2019Review
- Late translational research: putting forward a new model for developing new anti-cancer treatments that addresses the needs of patients and society.Molecular oncology · 2019Review
- Association of BRCA1, ERCC1, RAP80, PKM2, RRM1, RRM2, TS, TSP1, and TXR1 mRNA expression levels between primary tumors and infiltrated regional lymph nodes in patients with resectable non-small cell lung cancer.The pharmacogenomics journal · 2019Article
- Toward a Tiered Model to Share Clinical Trial Data and Samples in Precision Oncology.Frontiers in medicine · 2018Article
- Societal challenges of precision medicine: Bringing order to chaos.European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990) · 2017Article
- Safeguarding the future of independent, academic clinical cancer research in Europe for the benefit of patients.ESMO open · 2017Article
- PIPELINEs: Creating Comparable Clinical Knowledge Efficiently by Linking Trial Platforms.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2016Article
- "Threshold-crossing": A Useful Way to Establish the Counterfactual in Clinical Trials?Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2016Article
- Deciphering and Targeting Oncogenic Mutations and Pathways in Breast Cancer.The oncologist · 2016Review
- Facilitating a culture of responsible and effective sharing of cancer genome data.Nature medicine · 2016Article
- Biotechnology landscape in cancer drug discovery.Future science OA · 2015Article
- What is the Need for Prostatic Biomarkers in Prostate Cancer Management?Current urology reports · 2015Review
- Changing the Paradigm—Multistage Multiarm Randomized Trials and Stratified Cancer Medicine.The oncologist · 2015Article
- Clinical cancer research: the past, present and the future.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2014Review
- Precision Medicine: From "Omics" to Economics towards Data-Driven Healthcare - Time for European Transformation.Biomedicine hubReview
- A Healthy Sense of Trust.Biomedicine hubReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Health systems and the clinical research landscape evolve continuously owing to increased risk aversion, scrutiny by funding bodies, and costs of clinical trials. In this context, however, current drug development procedures are far from optimal, as exemplified by the late-stage failure of several drugs. The identification of new drugs urgently requires approaches based on a solid understanding of cancer biology, and that will support the design of robust confirmatory trials. The complexity and the costs of drug development are now beyond the knowledge and operational capacity of single organisations, therefore, a drastic deviation from the traditional path of drug discovery and new forms of multidisciplinary partnerships are needed to succeed in this sector. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) proposes the use of collaborative molecular screening platforms (CMSPs) as a new approach to tackle this issue. These CMSPs have the advantage of optimizing the expertise of several partners and combining efforts alongside with cost-sharing models for efficient patient selection. This article describes some of the challenges to advancing drug development and improving medical treatments and how these hurdles can be overcome.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24935010What 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.