Trial reportMolecular oncology2018
Revisited analysis of a SHIVA01 trial cohort using functional mutational analyses successfully predicted treatment outcome.
Trial report in Molecular oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Growth Modulation Index (GMI) as an Efficacy Outcome in Cancer Clinical Trials: A Scoping Review with Suggested Reporting Guidelines.Current oncology reports · 2025Article
- A computational method for prioritizing targeted therapies in precision oncology: performance analysis in the SHIVA01 trial.NPJ precision oncology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It still remains to be demonstrated that using molecular profiling to guide therapy improves patient outcome in oncology. Classification of somatic variants is not straightforward, rendering treatment decisions based on variants with unknown significance (VUS) hard to implement. The oncogenic activity of VUS and mutations identified in 12 patients treated with molecularly targeted agents (MTAs) in the frame of SHIVA01 trial was assessed using Functional Annotation for Cancer Treatment (FACT). MTA response prediction was measured in vitro, blinded to the actual clinical trial results, and survival predictions according to FACT were correlated with the actual PFS of SHIVA01 patients. Patients with positive prediction had a median PFS of 5.8 months versus 1.7 months in patients with negative prediction (P < 0.05). Our results highlight the role of the functional interpretation of molecular profiles to predict MTA response.
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.