ReviewAdvances in anatomic pathology2016
The State of the Art in Colorectal Cancer Molecular Biomarker Testing.
Review in Advances in anatomic pathology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accreditation, setting and experience as indicators to assure quality in oncology biomarker testing laboratories.British journal of cancer · 2018Article
- First-Line Cetuximab Monotherapy in KRAS/NRAS/BRAF Mutation-Negative Colorectal Cancer Patients.Clinical drug investigation · 2018Article
- Clinical application of targeted next-generation sequencing for colorectal cancer patients: a multicentric Belgian experience.Oncotarget · 2018Article
- Do More With Less: Tips and Techniques for Maximizing Small Biopsy and Cytology Specimens for Molecular and Ancillary Testing: The University of Colorado Experience.Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The number of molecular biomarkers to inform treatment decisions in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) continues to expand and with it the methodologies that can be employed to evaluate these biomarkers. Beyond standard diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers, such as those used for Lynch syndrome, mutations in KRAS exon 2 are well established as predictive for lack of response to the antiepidermal growth factor receptor therapies panitumumab and cetuximab. Recent studies have extended these findings by demonstrating that mutations in KRAS exons 3 and 4 and in NRAS exons 2, 3, and 4 (with all KRAS and NRAS mutations collectively referred to as RAS) are also predictive for treatment outcomes among patients with mCRC receiving panitumumab and cetuximab in combination with chemotherapy or as monotherapy. Consequently, evaluation of these additional loci has been incorporated into current clinical guidelines, and pathologists will need to develop testing procedures and algorithms to reliably and rapidly evaluate RAS status. With the increased number of mutations that must be examined to evaluate the status of RAS and other emerging biomarkers, next-generation sequencing technologies are likely to become increasingly important in mCRC testing. This review describes new considerations for pathologists that have arisen as a consequence of the incorporation of additional biomarker testing into clinical practice for mCRC.
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.