ReviewEuropean journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990)2020
Systematic target actionability reviews of preclinical proof-of-concept papers to match targeted drugs to paediatric cancers.
Review in European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990), 2020. 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Idasanutlin in Combination with Chemotherapy or Venetoclax in Pediatric and Young Adult Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Solid Tumors (iMATRIX Idasa): Results of a Phase I/II, Multicenter, Multi-arm Study.Targeted oncology · 2026Trial
- Paediatric therapeutic development workshop on medulloblastoma.British journal of cancer · 2026Review
- Paediatric Therapeutic Development Workshop on rhabdoid tumours.British journal of cancer · 2026Review
- Advancing European paediatric research - the contribution of the Innovative Health Initiative.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Drug sensitivity profiling of 3D tumor tissue cultures in the pediatric precision oncology program INFORM.NPJ precision oncology · 2022Article
- Navigating the Regulatory Landscape to Develop Pediatric Oncology Drugs: Expert Opinion Recommendations.Paediatric drugs · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 7 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChildren with cancer are in urgent need of new therapies, as approximately 25% of patients experience a relapse and 20% succumb to their disease. Moreover, the majority of survivors suffer from clinically relevant health problems. Repurposing of targeted agents developed for adult indications could provide novel therapeutic options for paediatric cancer patients. To prioritise targeted drugs for paediatric clinical development, we applied a systematic review methodology to develop a Target Actionability Review (TAR) strategy. These TARs assess the strength and completeness of published preclinical proof-of-concept (PoC) data by structured critical appraisal of and summarising the available scientific literature for a specific target (pathway) and the associated drugs in paediatric tumours.
methodsA sensitive literature search in PubMed was performed and relevant papers were identified. For each paper, the individual experimental findings were extracted, marked for paediatric tumour type and categorised into nine separate PoC data modules. Each experimental finding was scored for experimental outcome and quality independently by two reviewers; discrepancies were assessed by a third reviewer and resolved by adjudication. Scores corresponding to one PoC module were merged for each tumour type and visualised in a heat map matrix in the publicly available R2 data portal [r2.amc.nl]. RESULTS AND
conclusionsTo test our TAR methodology, we conducted a pilot study on MDM2 and TP53. The heat map generated from analysis of 161 publications provides a rationale to support drug development in specific paediatric solid and brain tumour types. Furthermore, our review highlights tumour types where preclinical data are incomplete or lacking and for which additional preclinical testing is advisable.
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.