Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35145903›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in oncology2021

A Need for More Molecular Profiling in Brain Metastases.

Erica Shen, Amanda E D Van Swearingen, Meghan J Price, Ketan Bulsara, Roeland G W Verhaak, César Baëta, Brice D Painter, Zachary J Reitman, April K S Salama, Jeffrey M Clarke and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  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

14 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Erica ShenDivision of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, University of Connecticut, Farmington, CT, United States.
Amanda E D Van SwearingenDivision of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States.
Meghan J PriceDepartment of Neurosurgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States.
Ketan BulsaraDivision of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, University of Connecticut, Farmington, CT, United States.
Roeland G W VerhaakDivision of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, University of Connecticut, Farmington, CT, United States.
César BaëtaDuke Center for Brain and Spine Metastasis, Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States.
Brice D PainterDuke Center for Brain and Spine Metastasis, Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States.
Zachary J ReitmanDepartment of Neurosurgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States.
April K S SalamaDivision of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States.
Jeffrey M ClarkeDivision of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States.
Carey K AndersDivision of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States.
Peter E FecciDuke Center for Brain and Spine Metastasis, Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States.
C Rory GoodwinDuke Center for Brain and Spine Metastasis, Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States.
Kyle M WalshDuke Center for Brain and Spine Metastasis, Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States.
Duke Medical Center · USDuke University Hospital · USUniversity of Connecticut · USJackson Laboratory · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As local disease control improves, the public health impact of brain metastases (BrM) continues to grow. Molecular features are frequently different between primary and metastatic tumors as a result of clonal evolution during neoplasm migration, selective pressures imposed by systemic treatments, and differences in the local microenvironment. However, biomarker information in BrM is not routinely obtained despite emerging evidence of its clinical value. We review evidence of discordance in clinically actionable biomarkers between primary tumors, extracranial metastases, and BrM. Although BrM biopsy/resection imposes clinical risks, these risks must be weighed against the potential benefits of assessing biomarkers in BrM. First, new treatment targets unique to a patient's BrM may be identified. Second, as BrM may occur late in a patient's disease course, resistance to initial targeted therapies and/or loss of previously identified biomarkers can occur by the time of occult BrM, rendering initial and other targeted therapies ineffective. Thus, current biomarker data can inform real-time treatment options. Third, biomarker information in BrM may provide useful prognostic information for patients. Appreciating the importance of biomarker analyses in BrM tissue, including how it may identify specific drivers of BrM, is critical for the development of more effective treatment strategies to improve outcomes for this growing patient population.

Indexed as

biomarkersbrain metastasesdiscordanceneurosurgerysequencing

Identifiers

PMID35145903
PMCPMC8821807
OpenAlexW4207059061

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.