Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32224415›Full record

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.

Nil A Schubert, Caitlin D Lowery, Guillaume Bergthold, Jan Koster, Thomas F Eleveld, Ana Rodríguez, David T W Jones, Gilles Vassal, Louis F Stancato, Stefan M Pfister and 2 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 42% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

12 authors at 7 institutions in 5 countries.

Nil A SchubertPrincess Máxima Center for Pediatric Oncology, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Caitlin D LoweryEli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Guillaume BergtholdHoffman-La Roche, Basel, Switzerland.
Jan KosterDepartment of Oncogenomics, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Thomas F EleveldPrincess Máxima Center for Pediatric Oncology, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Ana RodríguezHoffman-La Roche, Basel, Switzerland.
David T W JonesChildren's Cancer Center Heidelberg (KiTZ), Heidelberg, Germany; German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Gilles VassalDepartment of Clinical Research, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France.
Louis F StancatoEli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Stefan M PfisterChildren's Cancer Center Heidelberg (KiTZ), Heidelberg, Germany; German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Hubert N CaronHoffman-La Roche, Basel, Switzerland.
Jan J MolenaarPrincess Máxima Center for Pediatric Oncology, Utrecht, the Netherlands. Electronic address: j.j.molenaar@prinsesmaximacentrum.nl.
Princess Máxima Center · NLRoche (Switzerland) · CHEli Lilly (United States) · USGerman Cancer Research Center · DEHeidelberg University · DEInstitut Gustave Roussy · FRUniversity of Amsterdam · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Proof of Concept StudyAdolescentChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansMaleNeoplasmsPediatricsClinical developmentPaediatric oncologyPreclinical researchSystematic reviewTargeted drugs

Identifiers

PMID32224415
PMCPMC7203547
OpenAlexW3013400215

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.