ArticleBritish journal of cancer2016
Precision medicine in cancer: challenges and recommendations from an EU-funded cervical cancer biobanking study.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- A data management system for precision medicine.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
- Circulating HPV DNA as a Marker for Early Detection of Relapse in Patients with Cervical Cancer.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2021Article
- Human papilloma virus (HPV) integration signature in Cervical Cancer: identification of MACROD2 gene as HPV hot spot integration site.British journal of cancer · 2021Article
- Genetic markers and phosphoprotein forms of beta-catenin pβ-Cat552 and pβ-Cat675 are prognostic biomarkers of cervical cancer.EBioMedicine · 2020Article
- Clinical and genetic landscape of treatment naive cervical cancer: Alterations in PIK3CA and in epigenetic modulators associated with sub-optimal outcome.EBioMedicine · 2019Article
- The EMBRACE II study: The outcome and prospect of two decades of evolution within the GEC-ESTRO GYN working group and the EMBRACE studies.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 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
16 authors at 8 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCervical cancer (CC) remains a leading cause of gynaecological cancer-related mortality worldwide. CC pathogenesis is triggered when human papillomavirus (HPV) inserts into the genome, resulting in tumour suppressor gene inactivation and oncogene activation. Collecting tumour and blood samples is critical for identifying these genetic alterations.
methodsBIO-RAIDs is the first prospective molecular profiling clinical study to include a substantial biobanking effort that used uniform high-quality standards and control of samples. In this European Union (EU)-funded study, we identified the challenges that were impeding the effective implementation of such a systematic and comprehensive biobanking effort.
resultsThe challenges included a lack of uniform international legal and ethical standards, complexities in clinical and molecular data management, and difficulties in determining the best technical platforms and data analysis techniques. Some difficulties were encountered by all investigators, while others affected only certain institutions, regions, or countries.
conclusionsThe results of the BIO-RAIDs programme highlight the need to facilitate and standardise regulatory procedures, and we feel that there is also a need for international working groups that make recommendations to regulatory bodies, governmental funding agencies, and academic institutions to achieve a proficient biobanking programme throughout EU countries. This represents the first step in precision 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.