ReviewClinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research2015
Next-Generation Sequencing to Guide Clinical Trials.
Review in Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 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
28 citing papers in PubMed, 73 citations in OpenAlex.
- KRAS and TP53 Circulating Tumor DNA are Prognostic in Localized Pancreatic Cancer.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Observational
- Towards Personalized Precision Oncology: A Feasibility Study of NGS-Based Variant Analysis of FFPE CRC Samples in a Chilean Public Health System Laboratory.Current issues in molecular biology · 2025Article
- Potential barriers to implementation of next-generation sequencing in cancer management: a U.S. Physician-based survey.Future oncology (London, England) · 2025Article
- Molecular Tumor Board Improves Outcomes for Hispanic Patients With Advanced Solid Tumors.JCO global oncology · 2024Article
- Article
- Integrating Early-Stage Drug Development with Clinical Networks; Challenges and Opportunities: The City of Hope Developing Experience.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Comprehensive Review on the Clinical Impact of Next-Generation Sequencing Tests for the Management of Advanced Cancer.JCO precision oncology · 2023Review
- RNA-seq RNAaccess identified as the preferred method for gene expression analysis of low quality FFPE samples.PloS one · 2023Article
- Discovery of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor specific biomarker in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease mouse models using modified basket trial.Clinical and molecular hepatology · 2022Article
- Clinical Quality Considerations when Using Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) in Clinical Drug Development.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2021Review
- Accessing Targeted Therapies: A Potential Roadblock to Implementing Precision Oncology?JCO oncology practice · 2021Article
- Article
- The Community Oncology and Academic Medical Center Alliance in the Age of Precision Medicine: Cancer Genetics and Genomics Considerations.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Review
- The pathogenicity of novel GUCY2D mutations in Leber congenital amaurosis 1 assessed by HPLC-MS/MS.PloS one · 2020Article
- Cost burden of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research · 2019Review
- Remaining challenges in predicting patient outcomes for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.Expert review of hematology · 2019Review
- Emerging Challenges and Opportunities in Infectious Disease Epidemiology.American journal of epidemiology · 2019Review
- Database of evidence for precision oncology portal.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2018Article
- The clinical impact of using complex molecular profiling strategies in routine oncology practice.Oncotarget · 2018Article
- Liquid Biopsy-Analysis of Circulating Tumor DNA (ctDNA) in Bladder Cancer.Bladder cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2018Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Rapidly accruing knowledge of the mutational landscape of malignant neoplasms, the increasing facility of massively parallel genomic sequencing, and the availability of drugs targeting many "driver" molecular abnormalities have spurred the oncologic community to consider how to use these new tools to improve cancer treatment. In order to assure that assignment of patients to a particular targeted treatment is likely to be beneficial to the patient, it will be necessary to conduct appropriate clinical research. It is clear that clinical (histology and stage) eligibility criteria are not sufficient for most clinical trials using agents that target mutations that are present in only a minority of patients. Recently, several clinical trial designs have been suggested to test the benefit of targeted treatment in molecular and/or clinical subgroups of patients. However, challenges remain in the implementation of such trials, including choice of assay, levels of evidence regarding gene variants, tumor heterogeneity, identifying resistance mechanisms, the necessity of screening large numbers of patients, infrastructure needs, and collaboration of investigators and industry. This article reviews current trial designs and discusses some of the considerations, advantages, and drawbacks of designing clinical trials that depend on particular molecular variants as eligibility criteria.
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.