Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30419858›Full record

Trial reportBMC cancer2018

Intra-patient and inter-patient comparisons of DNA damage response biomarkers in Nasopharynx Cancer (NPC): analysis of NCC0901 randomised controlled trial of induction chemotherapy in locally advanced NPC.

Kevin Lee Min Chua, Eugenia Li Ling Yeo, Waseem Ahamed Shihabudeen, Sze Huey Tan, Than Than Shwe, Enya Hui Wen Ong, Paula Yeng Po Lam, Khee Chee Soo, Yoke Lim Soong, Kam Weng Fong and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIClinical Trial, Phase III
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 34% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Epigenomic landscape of nasopharyngeal carcinoma.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2025
    Review
  2. 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

13 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Kevin Lee Min ChuaDivision of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, 11 Hospital Drive, Singapore, 169610, Singapore.
Eugenia Li Ling YeoDivision of Medical Sciences, National Cancer Centre, Singapore, Singapore.
Waseem Ahamed ShihabudeenDivision of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, 11 Hospital Drive, Singapore, 169610, Singapore.
Sze Huey TanDivision of Clinical Trials and Epidemiological Sciences, National Cancer Centre, Singapore, Singapore.
Than Than ShweDivision of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, 11 Hospital Drive, Singapore, 169610, Singapore.
Enya Hui Wen OngDivision of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, 11 Hospital Drive, Singapore, 169610, Singapore.
Paula Yeng Po LamDivision of Cellular and Molecular Research, National Cancer Centre, Singapore, Singapore.
Khee Chee SooDivision of Medical Sciences, National Cancer Centre, Singapore, Singapore.
Yoke Lim SoongDivision of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, 11 Hospital Drive, Singapore, 169610, Singapore.
Kam Weng FongDivision of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, 11 Hospital Drive, Singapore, 169610, Singapore.
Terence Wee Kiat TanDivision of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, 11 Hospital Drive, Singapore, 169610, Singapore.
Joseph Tien Seng WeeDivision of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, 11 Hospital Drive, Singapore, 169610, Singapore.
Melvin Lee Kiang ChuaDivision of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, 11 Hospital Drive, Singapore, 169610, Singapore. Melvin.chua.l.k@singhealth.com.sg.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6021-368X
National Cancer Centre Singapore · SGDuke-NUS Medical School · SGSingHealth · SG

Funding

Duke-NUS Oncology Academic Program Proton Research Program 08/FY2017/EX/06-A37National Medical Research Council Singapore #NMRC/TA/0030/2014
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInter-patient heterogeneity in radiation-induced DNA damage responses is proposed to reflect intrinsic variations in tumour and normal tissue radiation sensitivity, but the prediction of phenotype by a molecular biomarker is influenced by clinical confounders and assay reproducibility. Here, we characterised the intrapatient and inter-patient heterogeneity in biomarkers of DNA damage and repair and radiation-induced apoptosis.

methodsWe enrolled 85 of 172 patients with locally advanced nasopharynx cancer from a randomised controlled phase II/III trial of induction chemotherapy added to chemo-radiotherapy. G

resultsWe observed limited intrapatient variation in γH2AX foci and %FLICA readouts; median difference of duplicate foci scores was - 0.37 (IQR = - 1.256-0.800) for 1 Gy 0.5 h and 0.09 (IQR = - 0.685-0.792) for 4 Gy 24 h; ICC of ≥0.80 was observed for duplicate %FLICA

conclusionHere, we confirmed the technical reproducibility of DNA damage response assays for clinical implementation as biomarkers of clinical radiosensitivity in nasopharynx cancer patients.

Indexed as

DNA DamageAdultAgedAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsApoptosisBiomarkersCD4-Positive T-LymphocytesCD8-Positive T-LymphocytesDNA RepairFemaleHistonesHumansInduction ChemotherapyMaleMiddle AgedNasopharyngeal NeoplasmsBiomarkersHistonesBiological heterogeneityBiomarkerDNA damage responseDNA repairRadiation-induced apoptosis

Identifiers

PMID30419858
PMCPMC6233280
OpenAlexW2901519420

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.