Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30918367›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Genetics2019

Resolving genetic heterogeneity in cancer.

Samra Turajlic, Andrea Sottoriva, Trevor Graham, Charles Swanton

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Genetics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 384 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
384citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

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

384 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

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

324 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Samra Turajlic *Cancer Evolution and Genome Instability Laboratory, Francis Crick Institute, London, UK.
Andrea Sottoriva *Evolutionary Genomics and Modelling Laboratory, Centre for Evolution and Cancer, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6709-9533
Trevor GrahamTumour Biology, Evolution and Cancer Laboratory, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK. t.graham@qmul.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9582-1597
Charles SwantonCancer Evolution and Genome Instability Laboratory, Francis Crick Institute, London, UK. charles.swanton@crick.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4299-3018

Funding

Cancer Research UK 19771Cancer Research UK 22909Wellcome Trust 202778/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To a large extent, cancer conforms to evolutionary rules defined by the rates at which clones mutate, adapt and grow. Next-generation sequencing has provided a snapshot of the genetic landscape of most cancer types, and cancer genomics approaches are driving new insights into cancer evolutionary patterns in time and space. In contrast to species evolution, cancer is a particular case owing to the vast size of tumour cell populations, chromosomal instability and its potential for phenotypic plasticity. Nevertheless, an evolutionary framework is a powerful aid to understand cancer progression and therapy failure. Indeed, such a framework could be applied to predict individual tumour behaviour and support treatment strategies.

Indexed as

Clonal EvolutionGenetic HeterogeneityModels, GeneticCell Transformation, NeoplasticChromosomal InstabilityClone CellsDNA Copy Number VariationsGenomicsHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansNeoplasm MetastasisNeoplasmsNeoplastic Cells, CirculatingSelection, GeneticSingle-Cell Analysis

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.