SynthesisJournal of the National Cancer Institute2015
Impact of a Biomarker-Based Strategy on Oncology Drug Development: A Meta-analysis of Clinical Trials Leading to FDA Approval.
Synthesis in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 100 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
100 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Risk-Benefit of Phase 2 Monotherapy Trials in Adult Solid Cancers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of cancer · 2026Pooled it
- Background and clinical significance of biomarker-based patient enrichment in non-small-cell lung cancer drug development.Scientific reports · 2024Pooled it
- Correlation between biomarkers and treatment outcomes in diverse cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis of phase I and II immunotherapy clinical trials.European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990) · 2023Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of anticancer drug combinations: a meta-analysis of randomized trials with a focus on immunotherapeutics and gene-targeted compounds.Oncoimmunology · 2020Pooled it
- Genomics of gallbladder cancer: the case for biomarker-driven clinical trial design.Cancer metastasis reviews · 2016Pooled it
- Molecular Tumor Board-Assisted Care in an Advanced Cancer Population: Results of a Phase II Clinical Trial.JCO precision oncology · 2022Trial
- Improving public cancer care by implementing precision medicine in Norway: IMPRESS-Norway.Journal of translational medicine · 2022Trial
- Genomic and transcriptomic profiling expands precision cancer medicine: the WINTHER trial.Nature medicine · 2019Trial
- IDAP: an integrated literature- and knowledge-graph-driven evidence prioritization pipeline for precision oncology.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Impact of next-generation sequencing on routine clinical practice and patient inclusion in molecularly targeted clinical trials: a retrospective cohort analysis.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026Article
- IMPRESS-Norway: improving public cancer care by implementing precision medicine in Norway; inclusion rates and preliminary results.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2024Article
- Added value of whole-exome and RNA sequencing in advanced and refractory cancer patients with no molecular-based treatment recommendation based on a 90-gene panel.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- Implementing precision oncology in Latin America to improve patient outcomes: the status quo and a call to action for key stakeholders and decision-makers.Ecancermedicalscience · 2024Article
- Article
- JNTX-101, a novel albumin-encapsulated gemcitabine prodrug, is efficacious and operates via caveolin-1-mediated endocytosis.Molecular therapy oncolytics · 2023Article
- Article
- Clinical implications of tumor-based next-generation sequencing in high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer.Cancer · 2023Article
- Consensus Statements on Precision Oncology in the China Greater Bay Area.JCO precision oncology · 2023Article
- Perioperative Tailored Treatments for Gastric Cancer: Times Are Changing.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- The diagnosis and treatment for a patient with cancer of unknown primary: A case report.Frontiers in genetics · 2023Article
40 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn order to ascertain the impact of a biomarker-based (personalized) strategy, we compared outcomes between US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved cancer treatments that were studied with and without such a selection rationale.
methodsAnticancer agents newly approved (September 1998 to June 2013) were identified at the Drugs@FDA website. Efficacy, treatment-related mortality, and hazard ratios (HRs) for time-to-event endpoints were analyzed and compared in registration trials for these agents. All statistical tests were two-sided.
resultsFifty-eight drugs were included (leading to 57 randomized [32% personalized] and 55 nonrandomized trials [47% personalized], n = 38 104 patients). Trials adopting a personalized strategy more often included targeted (100% vs 65%, P < .001), oral (68% vs 35%, P = .001), and single agents (89% vs 71%, P = .04) and more frequently permitted crossover to experimental treatment (67% vs 28%, P = .009). In randomized registration trials (using a random-effects meta-analysis), personalized therapy arms were associated with higher relative response rate ratios (RRRs, compared with their corresponding control arms) (RRRs = 3.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.51 to 5.82, vs RRRs = 2.08, 95% CI = 1.76 to 2.47, adjusted P = .03), longer PFS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.41, 95% CI = 0.33 to 0.51, vs HR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.53 to 0.65, adjusted P < .001) and a non-statistically significantly longer OS (HR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.61 to 0.83, vs HR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.77 to 0.85, adjusted P = .07) compared with nonpersonalized trials. Analysis of experimental arms in all 112 registration trials (randomized and nonrandomized) demonstrated that personalized therapy was associated with higher response rate (48%, 95% CI = 42% to 55%, vs 23%, 95% CI = 20% to 27%, P < .001) and longer PFS (median = 8.3, interquartile range [IQR] = 5 vs 5.5 months, IQR = 5, adjusted P = .002) and OS (median = 19.3, IQR = 17 vs 13.5 months, IQR = 8, Adjusted P = .04). A personalized strategy was an independent predictor of better RR, PFS, and OS, as demonstrated by multilinear regression analysis. Treatment-related mortality rate was similar for personalized and nonpersonalized trials.
conclusionsA biomarker-based approach was safe and associated with improved efficacy outcomes in FDA-approved anticancer agents.
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.