SynthesisEuropean journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990)2025
Molecularly directed therapy in cancers of unknown primary: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- SEOM-GECOD clinical guideline for cancer of unknown primary (update 2025).Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026Guideline
- Integrating artificial intelligence into cancers of unknown primary diagnosis and treatment.iScience · 2026Review
- Article
- Implementing practice-changing progress for managing cancer of unknown primary.Nature reviews. Cancer · 2026Article
- Molecular-Guided Precision Oncology in Cancer of Unknown Primary: A State-of-the-Art Perspective.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCancers of unknown primary (CUP) are associated with a high mortality rate, with limited therapeutic options available and platinum-based chemotherapy recommended as standard of care. Over the past decade, molecularly guided approaches aiming to adapt treatment strategies in patients with CUP based on predicted site of origin (site-specific approach) or genomic characteristics (tissue-agnostic approach) have been explored in clinical studies, with heterogenous findings identified.
methodsPubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and conference abstracts of American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) meetings were searched from inception until October 2024, for clinical studies that assessed molecularly directed therapies (MDT) in the management of patients with CUP, as compared to empiric treatment. A meta-analysis using a random-effects model and the inverse variance method was conducted, with a subgroup analysis by study design (randomized versus non-randomized). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and the secondary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS).
resultsSix studies encompassing 1644 patients were included, of which 4 randomized controlled trials. A significant improvement of OS in patients with CUP treated with MDT versus empiric therapy was identified (HR: 0.75, 95 %CI: 0.62-0.91), with consistent results seen across randomized (HR: 0.86, 95 %CI: 0.73-1.01) and non-randomized (HR: 0.50, 95 %CI: 0.26-0.96). Similarly, PFS was significantly improved with MDT, as compared to empiric treatment (HR: 0.79, 95 %CI: 0.67-0.94).
conclusionThe use of MDT is associated with improved survival outcomes among patients with CUP. These findings provide evidence that support the role of MDT as a potential novel standard of care in CUP treatment.
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.