ArticleJNCI cancer spectrum2018
Prognosis vs Treatment Interaction.
Article in JNCI cancer spectrum, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Risk-benefit trade-offs and precision utilities in phase I-II clinical trials.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2024Article
- Interpreting Randomized Controlled Trials.Cancers · 2023Review
- Less is More? First Impressions From COSMIC-313.Cancer investigation · 2023Article
- Review
- Absolute Improvements in Freedom From Distant Recurrence to Tailor Adjuvant Endocrine Therapies for Premenopausal Women: Results From TEXT and SOFT.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2020Article
- Predicting Expected Absolute Chemotherapy Treatment Benefit in Women With Early-Stage Breast Cancer Using EndoPredict, an Integrated 12-Gene Clinicomolecular Assay.JCO precision oncology · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is a somewhat confused belief that a biomarker must show an interaction effect with a treatment before it can be used to determine the need for such a treatment. This is rarely true for well-established clinical markers such as tumor size or regional lymph node involvement. In many cases, this is also not true for biomarkers, especially when considering nontargeted therapies. Here I argue that for nontargeted treatments prognosis is often more important than interaction with treatment, because it is the absolute and not the relative benefit that matters, and when there is no treatment interaction, the same relative benefit translates into a larger absolute benefit for poor prognosis patients.
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.