ReviewNature reviews. Clinical oncology2014
How does genome sequencing impact surgery?
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- ZIM, a Norbornene Derived from 4-Aminoantipyrine, Induces DNA Damage and Cell Death but in Association Reduces the Effect of Commercial Chemotherapeutics.Chemical research in toxicology · 2023Article
- Surgical training fit for the future: the need for a change.Postgraduate medical journal · 2022Article
- Molecular Profiling in Pancreatic Cancer: Current Role and Its Impact on Primary Surgery.Visceral medicine · 2022Review
- WT1 expression in vessels varies with histopathological grade in tumour-bearing and control tissue from patients with breast cancer.British journal of cancer · 2018Article
- Systems biology approaches to adverse drug effects: the example of cardio-oncology.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2015Review
- Assessment of the toxicogenic effects and cell death potential of the ester (Z)-methyl 4-((1,5-dimethyl-3-oxo-2-phenyl-2,3-dihydro-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)amino)-4-oxobut-2-anoate in combination with cisplatin, cyclophosphamide and doxorubicin.Genetics and molecular biologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cancer is a leading cause of death worldwide. Great efforts are dedicated to the development of prognostic and predictive biomarkers to improve diagnosis and achieve optimal treatment selection, thereby, introducing precision medicine in the multimodality treatment of cancer. Genomic aberrations are the basis of tumour development, representing excellent candidates for the development of promising clinical biomarkers. Over the past decade, single-gene mutations and genomic profiling have been increasingly used in multidisciplinary consultations for risk-assessment and treatment planning for patients with cancer. We discuss the impact of such genetic-based information on surgical decision-making. Single-gene mutations have already influenced surgical decision-making in breast, colorectal and thyroid cancer. However, the direct impact of genomic profiling on surgical care has not yet been fully established. We discuss the direct and indirect influences of genomic profiling on surgery, and analyse the limitations and unresolved issues of a genotypic-approach to the surgical management of cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.