ReviewCancers2021
Drug Development in Tissue-Agnostic Indications.
Review in Cancers, 2021. 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- The Growth Modulation Index (GMI) as an Efficacy Outcome in Cancer Clinical Trials: A Scoping Review with Suggested Reporting Guidelines.Current oncology reports · 2025Article
- Agnostic Administration of Targeted Anticancer Drugs: Looking for a Balance between Hype and Caution.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Identification of a central network hub of key prognostic genes based on correlation between transcriptomics and survival in patients with metastatic solid tumors.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2024Article
- How do cancer clinicians perceive real-world data and the evidence derived therefrom? Findings from an international survey of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Article
- TRK Inhibitors: Tissue-Agnostic Anti-Cancer Drugs.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A better understanding of cancer biology has led to the development of targeted therapies specifically designed to modulate an altered molecular pathway in the cancer cells or their microenvironment. Despite the identification of molecular targets across cancer types, most of targeted therapies were developed per cancer type. In this ancestral paradigm, randomization was the gold-standard approach for market access. Randomization of large patient populations was feasible for drugs developed in common cancer types but more challenging in rare cancer types. The traditional paradigm of drug development in oncology was further challenged by the ever-expanding molecular segmentation of cancer with ever-smaller subgroups of patients who might benefit from specific targeted therapies or immunotherapies and the identification of molecular alterations against which drugs may be effective across cancer types. In this novel drug development paradigm, novel ways of evaluating the efficacy of drugs are highly needed in these small patient populations. One approach is to use each patient as his/her own control by comparing the efficacy of a drug to the efficacy of prior treatments received. This approach allows to overcome patient heterogeneity, especially in a tissue-agnostic drug development paradigm.
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.