ReviewOncotarget2019
Molecular biomarkers and precision medicine in colorectal cancer: a systematic review of health economic analyses.
Review in Oncotarget, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Heat shock protein 90 (HSP90) inhibitors in gastrointestinal cancer: where do we currently stand?-A systematic review.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness of precision diagnostic testing for precision medicine approaches against non-small-cell lung cancer: A systematic review.Molecular oncology · 2021Pooled it
- Very Early Health Technology Assessment for Potential Predictive Biomarkers in the Treatment of Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2025Article
- Assessing the Therapeutic Impacts of HAMLET and FOLFOX on BRAF-Mutated Colorectal Cancer: A Study of Cancer Cell Survival and Mitochondrial Dynamics In Vitro and Ex Vivo.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Delivering the precision oncology paradigm: reduced R&D costs and greater return on investment through a companion diagnostic informed precision oncology medicines approach.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2023Article
- CDX2 Biomarker Testing and Adjuvant Therapy for Stage II Colon Cancer: An Exploratory Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2022Article
- Challenges Faced by Clinicians in the Personalized Treatment Planning: A Literature Review and the First Results of the Russian National Cancer Program.Critical care research and practice · 2021Review
- Physical PEGylation Enhances The Cytotoxicity Of 5-Fluorouracil-Loaded PLGA And PCL Nanoparticles.International journal of nanomedicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
An increased understanding of the biology of colorectal cancer (CRC) has fuelled identification of biomarkers with potential to drive a stratified precision medicine care approach in this common malignancy. We conducted a systematic review of health economic assessments of molecular biomarkers (MBMs) and their employment in patient stratification in CRC. Our analysis revealed scenarios where health economic analyses have been applied to evaluate the cost effectiveness of MBM-guided clinical interventions: (i) evaluation of Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase gene (DPYD) status to identify patients susceptible to 5-Fluouracil toxicity; (ii) determination of Uridine 5'-diphospho- glucuronosyltransferase family 1 member A1 gene (UGT1A1) polymorphism status to help guide irinotecan treatment; (iii) assessment of RAS/RAF mutational status to stratify patients for chemotherapy or Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) therapy and (iv) multigene expression analysis (Oncotype Dx) to identify and spare non-responders the debilitating effects of particular chemotherapy interventions. Our findings indicate that Oncotype Dx is cost-effective in high income settings within specific price points, by limiting treatment toxicity in CRC patients. DPYD status testing may also be cost effective in certain settings to avoid specific 5-FU toxicities post treatment. In contrast, current research does not support UGT1A1 polymorphism status as a cost-effective guide to irinotecan dosing, while the health economic evidence to support testing of KRAS/NRAS mutational status and chemo/EGFR therapy choice was inconclusive, despite its widespread adoption in CRC treatment management. However, we also show that there is a paucity of high-quality cost-effectiveness studies to support clinical application of precision medicine approaches in CRC.
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.