SynthesisLung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2016
Problems of variable biomarker evaluation in stratified medicine research--A case study of ERCC1 in non-small-cell lung cancer.
Synthesis in Lung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2016. 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Serum proteomic test in advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer treated in first line with standard chemotherapy.British journal of cancer · 2017Observational
- ERCC1_202 Is A Prognostic Biomarker in Advanced Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients Treated with Platinum-Based Chemotherapy.Journal of Cancer · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesConsistency of procedures for the evaluation of a predictive biomarker (including sample collection, processing, assay and scoring system) based on adequate evidence is necessary to implement research findings in clinical practice. As a case study we evaluated how a particular predictive biomarker, ERCC1, was assessed in research on platinum-based chemotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer and what motivated the choice of procedure. MATERIALS AND
methodsA systematic review of studies completed since 2007 and ongoing was undertaken. Questionnaires on details of ERCC1 evaluation procedures and the rationale for their choice were sent to contacts of identified studies.
resultsThirty-three studies of platinum-based chemotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer using ERCC1 were identified. A reply to the questionnaire was received for 16 studies. Procedures for ERCC1 evaluation varied substantially and included reverse transcriptase quantitative polymerase chain reaction (nine studies), immunohistochemistry (five studies) and other methods (multiple methods-two studies, NER polymorphism-one study). In five studies ERCC1 use was planned, but not undertaken. In nine data was insufficient to identify the procedure. For each assay there was variation across studies in the details of the laboratory techniques, scoring systems and methods for obtaining samples.
conclusionsWe found large variation across studies in ERCC1 evaluation procedures. This will limit the future comparability of results between these different studies. To enable evidence-based clinical practice, consensus is needed on a validated procedure to assess a predictive biomarker in the early phase of research. We believe that ERCC1 is not untypical of biomarkers being investigated for stratified medicine.
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.