ReviewCellular oncology (Dordrecht, Netherlands)2015
Obstacles to precision oncology: confronting current factors affecting the successful introduction of biomarkers to the clinic.
Review in Cellular oncology (Dordrecht, Netherlands), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- In search of an evidence-based strategy for quality assessment of human tissue samples: report of the tissue Biospecimen Research Working Group of the Spanish Biobank Network.Journal of translational medicine · 2019Review
- Budget impact model for oncopharmacogenetics from the perspective of mandatory basic health insurance in Switzerland using the example of breast cancer.Pharmacogenomics and personalized medicine · 2018Article
- Cytotoxicity of allitinib, an irreversible anti-EGFR agent, in a large panel of human cancer-derived cell lines: KRAS mutation status as a predictive biomarker.Cellular oncology (Dordrecht, Netherlands) · 2016Article
- Big Data: the challenge for small research groups in the era of cancer genomics.British journal of cancer · 2015Review
- Personalized cancer medicine: next steps in the genomic era.Cellular oncology (Dordrecht, Netherlands) · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTailoring treatment strategies to individual patients requires the availability of reliable biomarkers. Despite important investment in biomarker research, few examples of successful biomarker-drug co-development are currently seen in clinical practice. The validity of a biomarker measurement may be affected by different pre-analytical, analytical and post-analytical factors. The lack of control or oversight of any of these factors may ultimately lead to failure in translating a promising research finding into clinical practice. In the present review, we put into perspective some of the obstacles to "precision" oncology, focusing on the technical and biological hurdles that may affect the validity of a biomarker result and, ultimately, the likelihood of a new targeted agent to reach the clinic.
conclusionBiomarker application in precision oncology must consider the evolution of neoplastic disease, evaluate strengths and limitations of the platform used for the determination, and efficiently address specimen type and handling issues. In-depth analytical validation of a new biomarker test that includes evaluation of target stability should be performed before the test is used in clinical samples. More efficient sampling and use of high-sensitivity methodologies may overcome the influence of tumor heterogeneity on biomarker measurement. Clinical trials with biomarker endpoints may only be successful when multidisciplinary academic study teams are involved and results meet the highest quality standards.
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.