Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32307639›Full record

ReviewClinical drug investigation2020

Tumor-Agnostic Treatment for Cancer: When How is Better than Where.

Daniele Lavacchi, Giandomenico Roviello, Alberto D'Angelo

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical drug investigation, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Basket Trials: Past, Present, and Future.Annual review of cancer biology · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Cancer in pregnancy: treatment effects.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2023
    Review
  8. Perioperative Tailored Treatments for Gastric Cancer: Times Are Changing.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Toward improved models of human cancer.APL bioengineering · 2021
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

3 authors.

Daniele LavacchiMedical Oncology, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy. daniele.lavacchi@yahoo.it.
Giandomenico RovielloDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Alberto D'AngeloDepartment of Biology and Biochemistry, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the evolving landscape of precision oncology, genomic characterization of tumor has become crucial in order to move toward a molecular-based therapy for the vast majority of cancers. Recently, translational research has offered new perspectives in systemic cancer treatment thanks to the identification of novel oncogenic targets and the development of new targeted therapies, followed by the latest applications of genomic sequencing. Simultaneously, next-generation sequencing (NGS) has expanded its accessibility, being incorporated into clinical studies at the time of the initial screening, disease progression, and often in longitudinal monitoring of molecular changes. Consequently, new potentially targetable molecular alterations have been identified in several different types of tumors, leading to the development of tumor-agnostic treatments. Being highly selective for specific molecular alterations, these drugs are active against different subtypes of oncogene-addicted cancers. Three of these drugs-pembrolizumab [an anti-programmed death 1 (PD-1) monoclonal antibody (MAb)], larotrectinib [a pan-tropomyosin receptor tyrosine kinase (TRK) inhibitor], and entrectinib [a pan-TRK, anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) and ROS-1 inhibitor]-received US FDA approval in 2017, 2018, and 2019, respectively. In this article, we critically review the clinical studies responsible for FDA approval and the most recently updated results. We then discuss the benefits and limitations of these new methodological approaches, paying particular attention to the largest precision medicine master protocol, NCI-MATCH. Among the benefits, there are the increased chances of offering targeted therapies for patients with specific alterations identified in different types of tumors. Among the limitations, we highlight that the same driver mutation may require different therapeutic strategies in different types of cancers. Additionally, the complex study design undeniably requires a dynamic strategy to enroll patients with considerable economic and managerial efforts.

Indexed as

Precision MedicineAntineoplastic AgentsHumansNeoplasmsAntineoplastic Agents

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.