ArticleChinese clinical oncology2014
Drug designs fulfilling the requirements of clinical trials aiming at personalizing medicine.
Article in Chinese 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.
- Precision oncology in gynecologic cancers: molecular taxonomy, biomarker-guided therapeutics, and the challenge of therapeutic resistance.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Application of radiomics in lung immuno-oncology.Precision radiation oncology · 2023Review
- Clinical trial designs incorporating predictive biomarkers.Cancer treatment reviews · 2016Review
- Predicting Prognosis of Early-Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Using the GeneFx® Lung Signature.PLoS currents · 2015Article
- DICOM for Clinical Research: PACS-Integrated Electronic Data Capture in Multi-Center Trials.Journal of digital imaging · 2015Article
- Improving Clinical Trial Efficiency: Thinking outside the Box.American Society of Clinical Oncology educational book. American Society of Clinical Oncology. Annual Meeting · 2015Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
In the current era of stratified medicine and biomarker-driven therapies, the focus has shifted from predictions based on the traditional anatomic staging systems to guide the choice of treatment for an individual patient to an integrated approach using the genetic makeup of the tumor and the genotype of the patient. The clinical trial designs utilized in the developmental pathway for biomarkers and biomarker-directed therapies from discovery to clinical practice are rapidly evolving. While several issues need careful consideration, two critical issues that surround the validation of biomarkers are the choice of the clinical trial design (which is based on the strength of the preliminary evidence and marker prevalence), and biomarker assay related issues surrounding the marker assessment methods such as the reliability and reproducibility of the assay. In this review, we focus on trial designs aiming at personalized medicine in the context of early phase trials for initial marker validation, as well as in the context of larger definitive trials. Designs for biomarker validation are broadly classified as retrospective (i.e., using data from previously well-conducted randomized controlled trials (RCTs) versus prospective (enrichment, all-comers, hybrid or adaptive). We believe that the systematic evaluation and implementation of these design strategies are essential to accelerate the clinical validation of biomarker guided therapy.
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.