Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26949746›Full record

ReviewTrends in cancer2016

Cancer Evolution and the Limits of Predictability in Precision Cancer Medicine.

Kamil A Lipinski, Louise J Barber, Matthew N Davies, Matthew Ashenden, Andrea Sottoriva, Marco Gerlinger

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Trends in cancer, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 132 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
132citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

132 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Polygenic prediction and gene regulation networks.Royal Society open science · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

72 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Kamil A LipinskiCentre for Evolution and Cancer, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
Louise J BarberCentre for Evolution and Cancer, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
Matthew N DaviesCentre for Evolution and Cancer, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
Matthew AshendenCentre for Evolution and Cancer, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
Andrea SottorivaCentre for Evolution and Cancer, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
Marco GerlingerCentre for Evolution and Cancer, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; Gastrointestinal Cancer Unit, The Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK. Electronic address: marco.gerlinger@icr.ac.uk.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 18377Prostate Cancer UK PA12-15Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ability to predict the future behavior of an individual cancer is crucial for precision cancer medicine. The discovery of extensive intratumor heterogeneity and ongoing clonal adaptation in human tumors substantiated the notion of cancer as an evolutionary process. Random events are inherent in evolution and tumor spatial structures hinder the efficacy of selection, which is the only deterministic evolutionary force. This review outlines how the interaction of these stochastic and deterministic processes, which have been extensively studied in evolutionary biology, limits cancer predictability and develops evolutionary strategies to improve predictions. Understanding and advancing the cancer predictability horizon is crucial to improve precision medicine outcomes.

Indexed as

cancer evolutioncancer geneticsdrug resistanceprecision cancer medicinepredictive biomarkersprognostic biomarkers

Identifiers

PMID26949746
PMCPMC4756277

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.