Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29485132›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Clinical oncology2018

Epigenome-based cancer risk prediction: rationale, opportunities and challenges.

Martin Widschwendter, Allison Jones, Iona Evans, Daniel Reisel, Joakim Dillner, Karin Sundström, Ewout W Steyerberg, Yvonne Vergouwe, Odette Wegwarth, Felix G Rebitschek and 16 more

4 registry-linked trialsAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Clinical oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 4 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 110 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
110citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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.

NCT05224596 unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Gastric Cancer Detection by Liquid Biopsy in Peripheral Blood: A Prospective Study

TypeobservationalSponsorShanghai Zhongshan HospitalRan2021 to 2022Enrolled498ConditionsCancerArmsBlood draw and blood-based biomarkers analyses
NCT05347524 recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Detection of Peritoneal Metastasis of Gastric Cancer by Liquid Biopsy in Peripheral Blood: A Prospective Study

TypeobservationalSponsorShanghai Zhongshan HospitalRan2022 to 2030Enrolled384ConditionsCancerArmsBaseline blood draw and blood-based biomarkers analyses
NCT05495685 unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Pancreatic Cancer Detection by Liquid Biopsy in Peripheral Blood: A Prospective Study

TypeobservationalSponsorChanghai HospitalRan2022 to 2024Enrolled450ConditionsCancer
NCT05556603 recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Pancreatic Cancer Detection by Liquid Biopsy in Peripheral Blood: A Prospective Study

TypeobservationalSponsorRuijin HospitalRan2022 to 2029Enrolled7,062ConditionsCancer
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

110 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

50 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

26 authors.

Martin WidschwendterDepartment of Women's Cancer, Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK.
Allison JonesDepartment of Women's Cancer, Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK.
Iona EvansDepartment of Women's Cancer, Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK.
Daniel ReiselDepartment of Women's Cancer, Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK.
Joakim DillnerDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Karin SundströmDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Ewout W SteyerbergCenter for Medical Decision Sciences, Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Yvonne VergouweCenter for Medical Decision Sciences, Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Odette WegwarthMax Planck Institute for Human Development, Harding Center for Risk Literacy, Berlin, Germany.
Felix G RebitschekMax Planck Institute for Human Development, Harding Center for Risk Literacy, Berlin, Germany.
Uwe SiebertInstitute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, Department of Public Health, Health Services Research, and HTA, UMIT-University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall in Tirol, Austria.
Gaby SroczynskiInstitute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, Department of Public Health, Health Services Research, and HTA, UMIT-University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall in Tirol, Austria.
Inez D de BeaufortDepartment of Medical Ethics and Philosophy of Medicine, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Ineke BoltDepartment of Medical Ethics and Philosophy of Medicine, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
David CibulaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, First Medical Faculty of the Charles University and General Faculty Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.
Michal ZikanDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, First Medical Faculty of the Charles University and General Faculty Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.
Line BjørgeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Haukeland University Hospital, and Centre for Cancer Biomarkers, Department of Clinical Science, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Nicoletta ColomboEuropean Institute of Oncology and University Milan-Bicocca, Milan, Italy.
Nadia HarbeckBreast Center, Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, University of Munich (LMU), Munich, Germany.
Frank DudbridgeDepartment of Non-communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Anne-Marie TassePublic Population Project in Genomics and Society, McGill University and Genome Quebec Innovation Centre, Montreal, Canada.
Bartha M KnoppersCentre of Genomics and Policy, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Yann JolyCentre of Genomics and Policy, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Andrew E TeschendorffDepartment of Women's Cancer, Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK.
Nora PashayanDepartment of Applied Health Research, Institute of Epidemiology and Healthcare, University College London, UK.
FORECEE (4C) Consortium

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The incidence of cancer is continuing to rise and risk-tailored early diagnostic and/or primary prevention strategies are urgently required. The ideal risk-predictive test should: integrate the effects of both genetic and nongenetic factors and aim to capture these effects using an approach that is both biologically stable and technically reproducible; derive a score from easily accessible biological samples that acts as a surrogate for the organ in question; and enable the effectiveness of risk-reducing measures to be monitored. Substantial evidence has accumulated suggesting that the epigenome and, in particular, DNA methylation-based tests meet all of these requirements. However, the development and implementation of DNA methylation-based risk-prediction tests poses considerable challenges. In particular, the cell type specificity of DNA methylation and the extensive cellular heterogeneity of the easily accessible surrogate cells that might contain information relevant to less accessible tissues necessitates the use of novel methods in order to account for these confounding issues. Furthermore, the engagement of the scientific community with health-care professionals, policymakers and the public is required in order to identify and address the organizational, ethical, legal, social and economic challenges associated with the routine use of epigenetic testing.

Indexed as

Risk AssessmentDNA MethylationEpigenomicsGenome, HumanHumansNeoplasmsRisk Factors

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.