Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35121980›Full record

ReviewNature cancer2020

Delineating the evolutionary dynamics of cancer from theory to reality.

Ivana Bozic, Catherine J Wu

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Joint representation learning for oncology applications.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Multistage carcinogenesis in occupational cholangiocarcinoma: the impact of clonal expansion and risk estimation.Genes and environment : the official journal of the Japanese Environmental Mutagen Society · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

2 authors.

Ivana BozicDepartment of Applied Mathematics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. ibozic@uw.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2761-825X
Catherine J WuDepartment of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3348-5054

Funding

ProteomicsP01CA206978 · NCI · DANA-FARBER CANCER INST · PI WU, CATHERINE JU-YING · 2016 to 2025
$17.0M
Personal tumor neoantigens for immunity against chronic lymphocytic leukemiaR01CA155010 · NCI · DANA-FARBER CANCER INST · PI Catherine Ju-Ying Wu · 2011 to 2026
$9.6M
ITSC for Leukemia: Novel Molecular Strategies for NCTN: "Individualized" TherapieU10CA180861 · NCI · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI BLOOMFIELD, CLARA D, MARCUCCI, GUIDO · 2014 to 2018
$3.4M
NCI NIH HHS P01 CA206978NCI NIH HHS R01 CA155010NCI NIH HHS U10 CA180861
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Uncovering and quantifying the laws of the evolutionary dynamics of cancer, in particular in the context of specific genetic lesions and in individual patients, has the potential to revolutionize precision oncology. Recent technological advances in the study of human cancer have increased access to in vivo human data and have thereby facilitated the confirmation or refutation of existing theoretical models. In this Perspective, we discuss recent work at the intersection of quantitative mathematical models of cancer evolution and patient data that provides insights into different stages of tumor evolution, including premalignant and malignant progression and response to therapy.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsHumansMedical OncologyModels, TheoreticalPrecision Medicine

Identifiers

PMID35121980

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.