Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30275514›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Clinical oncology2018

Accelerating anticancer drug development - opportunities and trade-offs.

Sharyl J Nass, Mace L Rothenberg, Rebecca Pentz, Hedvig Hricak, Amy Abernethy, Kenneth Anderson, Amanda Wagner Gee, R Donald Harvey, Steven Piantadosi, Monica M Bertagnolli and 2 more

Abstract 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. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Spheroids and organoids derived from colorectal cancer as tools forExploration of targeted anti-tumor therapy · 2024
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Reconstructing the tumor architecture into organoids.Advanced drug delivery reviews · 2021
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

12 authors.

Sharyl J NassHealth and Medicine Division, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, Washington, DC, USA. snass@nas.edu.
Mace L RothenbergGlobal Product Development, Pfizer Oncology, Pfizer, New York, NY, USA.
Rebecca PentzDepartment of Hematology & Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, and Winship Cancer Institute, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Hedvig HricakDepartment of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Amy AbernethyFlatiron Health, New York, NY, USA.
Kenneth AndersonLebow Institute for Myeloma Therapeutics and Jerome Lipper Multiple Myeloma Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA.
Amanda Wagner GeeHealth and Medicine Division, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, Washington, DC, USA.
R Donald HarveyDepartment of Hematology & Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, and Winship Cancer Institute, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Steven PiantadosiDepartment of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Cancer Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Monica M BertagnolliDepartment of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Cancer Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Deborah SchragDivision of Population Sciences, Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA.
Richard L SchilskyAmerican Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The traditional approach to drug development in oncology, with discrete phases of clinical testing, is becoming untenable owing to expansion of the precision medicine paradigm, whereby patients are stratified into multiple subgroups according to the underlying cancer biology. Seamless approaches to drug development in oncology hold great promise of accelerating the accessibility of novel therapeutic agents to the public but are also accompanied by important trade-offs, including the limited availability of information on the clinical benefit and safety of novel agents at the time of market entry. In this Perspectives article, we describe several opportunities, in the form of novel trial designs or modelling strategies, to improve the efficiency of drug development in oncology, as well as new mechanisms to obtain information about anticancer therapies throughout their life cycle, such as innovative functional imaging techniques or the use of real-world clinical data.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsClinical Trials as TopicDrug DevelopmentHumansNeoplasmsPrecision MedicineAntineoplastic Agents

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.