ArticleOncoscience2014
A framework for genomic biomarker actionability and its use in clinical decision making.
Article in Oncoscience, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of therapeutic agent selection based on comprehensive genomic profiling in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms.PloS one · 2025Article
- A retrospective analysis suggests PTEN expression is associated with favorable clinicopathological features of breast cancer.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Criteria for assessing evidence for biomarker-targeted therapies in rare cancers-an extrapolation framework.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2024Article
- Extrapolating evidence for molecularly targeted therapies from common to rare cancers: a scoping review of methodological guidance.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Next-generation sequencing, should I use anti-HER2 therapy forTherapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2022Article
- Combined analysis of PTEN, HER2, and hormone receptors status: remodeling breast cancer risk profiling.BMC cancer · 2021Article
- Review
- Interpretations of the Term "Actionable" when Discussing Genetic Test Results: What you Mean Is Not What I Heard.Journal of genetic counseling · 2019Article
- Genomic Assessment of Blood-Derived Circulating Tumor DNA in Patients With Colorectal Cancers: Correlation With Tissue Sequencing, Therapeutic Response, and Survival.JCO precision oncology · 2019Article
- Next-Generation Sequencing of Circulating Tumor DNA Reveals Frequent Alterations in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.The oncologist · 2018Article
- From somatic variants towards precision oncology: Evidence-driven reporting of treatment options in molecular tumor boards.Genome medicine · 2018Article
- Utility of Genomic Assessment of Blood-Derived Circulating Tumor DNA (ctDNA) in Patients with Advanced Lung Adenocarcinoma.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2017Article
- Clinical sequencing using a next-generation sequencing-based multiplex gene assay in patients with advanced solid tumors.Cancer science · 2017Article
- An informatics research agenda to support precision medicine: seven key areas.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2016Article
- Genomic portfolio of Merkel cell carcinoma as determined by comprehensive genomic profiling: implications for targeted therapeutics.Oncotarget · 2016Article
- Detection rate of actionable mutations in diverse cancers using a biopsy-free (blood) circulating tumor cell DNA assay.Oncotarget · 2016Article
- Developing therapies for rare tumors: opportunities, challenges and progress.Expert opinion on orphan drugs · 2016Article
- Genomic landscape of salivary gland tumors.Oncotarget · 2015Article
- Actionability and precision oncology.Oncoscience · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The increasing scope and availability of genetic testing options for patients suffering from cancer has raised questions about how to use results of molecular diagnostics to inform patient care. For some biomarkers (e.g. BRAF mutations in melanoma), standards exist that outline treatments for individuals harboring aberrations in the biomarker; however for the vast majority of genomic abnormalities, few guidelines exist. Clinical decision making and the therapeutic approach for a patient with a given cancer characterized by aberrations in different genes may be aided by the use of a biomarker actionability framework that provides levels of evidence regarding whether and how a molecular abnormality can be considered a therapeutically relevant biomarker. A gene may be considered theoretically actionable if it has a basis of actionability, such that clinically available drugs can target a gene product that drives the cancer or is differentially expressed in tumor versus normal elements. Herein, we discuss a possible framework for developing guidelines for actionability, as they relate to genomically-based cancer therapeutics.
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.