Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25746942›Full record

ReviewUrologic oncology2015

Biomarker development in the context of urologic cancers.

Gary J Kelloff, Caroline C Sigman, Howard I Scher

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Urologic oncology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Clinical significance of galectin-3 expression in urinary bladder carcinoma.The Journal of international medical research · 2023
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Gary J KelloffDivision of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, MD.
Caroline C SigmanCCS Associates, Mountain View, CA. Electronic address: csigman@ccsainc.com.
Howard I ScherGenitourinary Oncology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY.
CCS Associates (United States) · USMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USNational Institutes of Health · US

Funding

SPORE In Prostate CancerP50CA092629 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Yu Chen, MICHAEL J MORRIS · 2001 to 2026
$63.0M
NCI NIH HHS P50 CA092629
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has called for the use of analytically validated biomarkers that have strong evidence of being fit for purpose to identify patients likely to respond and to evaluate the patient response to a therapy, potential toxicity, and drug resistance. This article discusses development and application of these biomarkers in the context of urologic cancers-specifically in cancers of the prostate and urinary bladder.

methodsThe FDA has defined four specific categories for contexts of biomarker use: prognostic, predictive, response-indicator, and efficacy-response (surrogate endpoints). Prognostic and predictive biomarkers include pretreatment characteristics of the patient and the tumor. Response-indicator and efficacy response biomarkers occur after treatment and show the effects of treatment on biomarkers. Efficacy response biomarkers show changes associated with clinical benefit and can be surrogates for clinical endpoints leading to drug approvals.

resultsWell-structured development plans are required to satisfy rigorous criteria that must be met to qualify biomarkers for specific contexts of use in drug development and patient management. A description of the extensive effort applied to the validation and qualification of circulating tumor cells in castration resistant prostate cancer is described as an example of the potential utility of biomarkers in urological cancers.

conclusionsMany potential biomarkers have been identified in prostate and urinary bladder cancers, but few have sufficient demonstration of analytical and clinical validity to meet FDA standards for use in clinical settings. Circulating tumor cell (CTC) assays are particularly promising candidates for informative new biomarkers to measure disease before and after treatment. New technologies are providing opportunities for high definition, more informative analysis. Statistical and computational methodologies to describe assay results are also rapidly evolving. These advances will lead to better diagnosis, earlier indications of treatment response and failure, and better definition of patient cohorts that will respond to a specific treatment.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorHumansPrognosisUrologic NeoplasmsBiomarkers, TumorAnalytical validationBiomarkerBiomarker qualificationBladder cancer biomarkersCirculating tumor cells (CTCs)Clinical utilityProstate cancer biomarkers

Identifiers

PMID25746942
PMCPMC4521394
OpenAlexW2047108031

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.