ReviewJCO precision oncology2019
Phase III Precision Medicine Clinical Trial Designs That Integrate Treatment and Biomarker Evaluation.
Review in JCO precision oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ripretinib Versus Sunitinib in Patients With Advanced Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor After Treatment With Imatinib (INTRIGUE): A Randomized, Open-Label, Phase III Trial.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2022Trial
- MUC16-dependent Renal Vascular Adhesion of Candida Promotes Tissue Invasion and Predicts Clinical Outcome in Candidemia.Research square · 2026Article
- Effect of Training Sequence on Learning Outcomes Using a Haptic Virtual Simulator for Endodontic Access Cavities: A Controlled Experimental Study.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Precision oncology in gynecologic cancers: molecular taxonomy, biomarker-guided therapeutics, and the challenge of therapeutic resistance.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Current Trends in the Biomarker's Discovery for the Treatment and Management of Colorectal Cancer: A Comprehensive Review.Current medicinal chemistry · 2025Review
- Molecular Profiling in Neuro-Oncology: Where We Are, Where We're Heading, and How We Ensure Everyone Can Come Along.American Society of Clinical Oncology educational book. American Society of Clinical Oncology. Annual Meeting · 2023Article
- Current drug development and trial designs in neuro-oncology: report from the first American Society of Clinical Oncology and Society for Neuro-Oncology Clinical Trials Conference.The Lancet. Oncology · 2023Review
- Liquid biopsies and cancer omics.Cell death discovery · 2020Review
- Cancer predictive studies.Biology direct · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent advances in biotechnology and cancer genomics have afforded enormous opportunities for development of more effective anticancer therapies. A key thrust of this modern drug development paradigm is successful identification of predictive biomarkers that can distinguish patients who might be sensitive to new targeted therapies. To respond to this challenge, a number of phase III cancer trial designs integrating biomarker-based objectives have been proposed and implemented in oncology drug development. In this article, we provide an updated review of commonly used biomarker-based randomized clinical trial designs, with a particular focus on design efficiency. When the efficacy of a new therapy may be limited to a biomarker-defined subgroup, the choice of an appropriate randomized clinical trial design should be guided by the strength of the biomarker's credentials. If compelling evidence indicates that a targeted therapy is beneficial only in a particular biomarker-defined subgroup, an enrichment design should be used. If there is strong evidence that the treatment is likely to be more beneficial in the biomarker-positive patients but a meaningful benefit is also possible in the biomarker-negative patients, then a properly powered biomarker-stratified design (eg, a subgroup-specific or Marker Sequential Test strategy) would provide the most rigorous determination of the sensitive populations. If the evidence supporting the predictive value of the biomarker is weak and the treatment is expected to work in the overall population, then a fallback design could be used. Careful selection of an appropriate phase III design strategy that integrates evaluation of a new anticancer therapy and its companion diagnostic is critical to the success of precision medicine in oncology.
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.