ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2015
The value of proteomics in lung cancer.
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Use of antibiotics in the ambulance for sepsis patients: is earlier really better?Journal of thoracic disease · 2018Article
- Clinical decisions surrounding genomic and proteomic testing among United States veterans treated for lung cancer within the Veterans Health Administration.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2017Article
- Proteomic profiling of lung adenocarcinoma indicates heightened DNA repair, antioxidant mechanisms and identifies LASP1 as a potential negative predictor of survival.Clinical proteomics · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many studies have identified the prognostic and predictive value of proteins or peptides in lung cancer but most failed to provide strong evidence for their clinical applicability. The strongest predictive proteins seem to be fatty acid-binding protein heart (H-FABP), and the 8-peak mass spectrography signature of VeriStrat. When focusing on VeriStrat, a 'VeriStrat good' profile did not discriminate between chemotherapy and erlotinib. The 'VeriStrat poor' profile showed a better outcome to chemotherapy than to erlotinib. VeriStrat is a prognostic test and only the "poor profile" discriminates for the type of therapy that should be chosen. Whether it adds useful information in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and wild type EGFR mutations is still doubtful. The position of the VeriStrat test in clinical practice is still not clear and we are waiting for prospective studies where biomarker test are involved in clinical decision.
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.