ReviewNature reviews. Clinical oncology2015
Integrating biomarkers in colorectal cancer trials in the West and China.
Review in Nature reviews. Clinical oncology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Proteomics-driven discovery of LCAT as a novel biomarker for liver metastasis in colorectal cancer.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- Circulating cell-free circRNA panel predicted tumorigenesis and development of colorectal cancer.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2022Article
- Role of exosomal long non-coding RNAs in colorectal cancer.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2021Review
- Disheveled-associated activator of morphogenesis 2 promotes invasion of colorectal cancer by activating PAK1 and promoting MMP7 expression.Genes & genomics · 2021Article
- Circ_ 0115744 acts as miR-144 sponge to promote and predict the metastasis of colorectal cancer.Aging · 2021Article
- Prognosis and clinical characteristics of colorectal cancer patients with KRAS gene mutation: a 5-year follow-up study.International journal of clinical and experimental pathology · 2019Article
- Novel therapeutics in metastatic colorectal cancer: molecular insights and pharmacogenomic implications.Expert review of clinical pharmacology · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The discovery of biomarkers that provide information on drug efficacy is recognized as essential for successful and cost-effective treatment of cancer. However, biomarker discovery is difficult, and requires multiple independent studies to identify a target that serves as a suitable predictor of efficacy and to ensure appropriate biomarker validation. Clinical trials that are performed, sometimes sequentially, in Europe, the USA or Asia, are often similar in their design, in part owing to regulatory, marketing, or safety considerations. We believe some of these trials offer additional unique opportunities for biomarker discovery or validation. There are multiple hurdles to overcome, such as homogenous tissue acquisition and analysis, defining and aligning biomarker hypotheses across trials, and the need to adapt sample sizes and trial designs. Nevertheless, we believe that a collaborative engagement of the academic, regulatory and pharmaceutical community can go a long way in addressing these issues and producing more-rapid results in the field of personalized medicine. In this Perspectives, we describe our views on the current fragmented approach to biomarker discovery and validation in relevant trials run within our own regions-that is, Europe, China, and the USA-and hope this article serves as a base for further reflection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25963094What 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.