Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32369643›Full record

ArticleThe oncologist2020

Molecular Guided Treatments in Gynecologic Oncology: Analysis of a Real-World Precision Cancer Medicine Platform.

Hossein Taghizadeh, Robert M Mader, Leonhard Müllauer, Stefanie Aust, Stephan Polterauer, Heinz Kölbl, Veronika Seebacher, Christoph Grimm, Alexander Reinthaller, Gerald W Prager

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The oncologist, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Hossein TaghizadehClinical Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine I, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-0927-6498
Robert M MaderClinical Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine I, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Leonhard MüllauerClinical Institute of Pathology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Stefanie AustDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Stephan PolterauerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Heinz KölblDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Veronika SeebacherDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Christoph GrimmDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Alexander ReinthallerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Gerald W PragerClinical Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine I, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Comprehensive Cancer Center Vienna · ATMedical University of Vienna · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAdvanced gynecologic cancers have a poor prognosis and constitute a major challenge for adequate treatment strategies. By analyzing and targeting molecular alterations, molecular guided treatments may be a viable option for the treatment of advanced gynecologic cancers. PATIENTS AND

methodsIn this single-center, real-world retrospective analysis of our platform for precision cancer medicine (PCM), we describe the molecular profiling of 72 patients diagnosed with different types of advanced gynecologic malignancies. Tumor samples of the patients were examined by next-generation sequencing panel and immunohistochemistry (IHC).

resultsIn total, we identified 209 genetic aberrations in 72 patients. The ten most frequent alterations were TP53 (n = 42, 20%), KRAS (n = 14, 6.6%), PIK3CA (n = 11, 5.2%), PIK3R1 (n = 9, 4.3%), ATR (n = 8, 3.8%), PTEN (n = 8, 3.8%), BRCA1 (n = 6, 2.8%), NF1 (n = 4, 1.9%), NOTCH1 (n = 4, 1.9%), and POLE (n = 4, 1.9%), which account for more than half of all molecular alterations (52.6%). In 21 (29.1%) patients only one mutation could be detected, and 44 (61.1%) patients had more than one mutation. No molecular alterations were detected in seven (9.7%) patients. IHC detected expression of phosphorylated mammalian target of rapamycin and epidermal growth factor receptor in 58 (80.6%) and 53 (73.6%) patients, respectively. In over two thirds (n = 49, 68.1%), a targeted therapy was suggested, based on the identified genetic aberrations. The most frequently recommended specific treatment was the combination of everolimus with exemestane (n = 18, 25 %).

conclusionBased on our observations, it seems that PCM might be a feasible approach for advanced gynecologic cancers with limited treatment options. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Nowadays molecular profiling of advanced gynecologic malignancies is feasible in the clinical routine. A molecular portrait should be done for every patient with an advanced therapy-refractory gynecologic malignancy to offer molecular-based treatment concepts.

Indexed as

Genital Neoplasms, FemalePrecision MedicineFemaleHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansMolecular Targeted TherapyMutationRetrospective StudiesGynecologic oncologyImmunohistochemistryMolecular aberrationsMolecular profilingPrecision medicineTargeted agents

Identifiers

PMID32369643
PMCPMC7356753
OpenAlexW3023222348

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.