Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40824687›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025

Uncovering the Understanding of the Concept of Patient Similarity in Cancer Research and Treatment: Scoping Review.

Iryna Manuilova, Jan Bossenz, Annemarie Bianka Weise, Dominik Boehm, Marvin Döbel, Silke D Werle, Arsenij Ustjanzew, Niklas Reimer, Cosima Strantz, Philipp Unberath and 10 more

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

20 authors.

Iryna ManuilovaJunior Research Group (Bio-)Medical Data Science, Faculty of Medicine, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-8821-1471
Jan BossenzJunior Research Group (Bio-)Medical Data Science, Faculty of Medicine, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-7946-8559
Annemarie Bianka WeiseJunior Research Group (Bio-)Medical Data Science, Faculty of Medicine, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-6925-5941
Dominik BoehmMedical Center for Information and Communication Technology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-2887-7109
Marvin DöbelJunior Research Group (Bio-)Medical Data Science, Faculty of Medicine, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8024-2178
Silke D WerleInstitute of Medical Systems Biology, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5153-0269
Arsenij UstjanzewInstitute of Medical Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics (IMBEI), University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Mainz, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1014-4521
Niklas ReimerMedical Systems Biology Group, Lübeck Institute of Experimental Dermatology, Universität zu Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0491-3929
Cosima StrantzMedical Informatics, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-3980-8233
Philipp UnberathMedical Center for Information and Communication Technology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1269-9360
Patrick MetzgerInstitute of Medical Bioinformatics and Systems Medicine, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2451-1943
Thomas PauliInstitute of Medical Bioinformatics and Systems Medicine, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8381-6624
Susann SchulzeKrukenberg Cancer Center Halle (Saale), Halle (Saale), Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3856-7956
Sonja HiemerKrukenberg Cancer Center Halle (Saale), Halle (Saale), Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-2886-9485
Irmak OguztürkMedical Informatics, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-9713-5806
Leila KamkarDepartment of Translational Medical Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT) Heidelberg and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-4719-2692
Hans A KestlerInstitute of Medical Systems Biology, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4759-5254
Hauke BuschMedical Systems Biology Group, Lübeck Institute of Experimental Dermatology, Universität zu Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4763-4521
Benedikt BrorsDivision Applied Bioinformatics, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5940-3101
Jan ChristophJunior Research Group (Bio-)Medical Data Science, Faculty of Medicine, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4369-3591

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient similarity is a fundamental concept in precision oncology, offering a pathway to personalized medicine by identifying patterns and shared characteristics among patients. This concept enables stratification into clinically meaningful subgroups, prediction of treatment responses, and the tailoring of therapeutic interventions to individual needs. Despite its transformative potential, the definition, measurement, and clinical application of patient similarity remain inconsistently established, creating challenges in its integration into cancer research and clinical practice.

objectiveThis study aimed to synthesize evidence on the multidimensional concept of patient similarity in cancer research by analyzing its application across different points of possible data types, methodological frameworks, biological contexts, and commonly studied cancer types.

methodsThis scoping review followed the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) framework and the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines. A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, MEDLINE, LIVIVO, and Web of Science (covering the period from 1998 to February 2024) and was supplemented by snowball sampling and manual searches. Duplicate records were removed, and study selection was carried out in 3 phases: title and abstract screening, disagreement resolution, and full-text screening. Each step was independently performed by 2 reviewers in Rayyan, with conflicts resolved by a third reviewer. Data extraction was performed using a predefined template to capture methodological approaches, data types, cancer types, and research objectives related to similarity in patients with cancer.

resultsThis scoping review synthesized evidence from 137 studies, emphasizing the multidimensional concept of patient similarity in cancer research, which integrates diverse data types, methodological frameworks, research objectives, and cancer types. Transcriptomic data (92/137, 67.1%) and clinical data (65/137, 47.4%) were the most frequently used, often combined to enhance the comprehensiveness of similarity analyses. Machine learning (76/137, 55.5%) and network-based approaches (72/137, 52.5%) were prominent methods, reflecting their capacity to handle complex, high-dimensional data and uncover intricate relationships. Cancer subtype identification (70/137, 51.1%) and biomarker discovery (41/137, 29.9%) were the primary research objectives, underscoring the centrality of patient similarity in precision oncology. Breast, lung, and brain cancers were the most frequently studied, benefiting from established research frameworks and abundant datasets. Conversely, rare cancers were underrepresented, highlighting a critical gap in the generalizability of current methodologies.

conclusionsThis comprehensive scoping review examines the concept of patient similarity in cancer research and highlights the critical role of a multilayered perspective in capturing its complexity and identification to enhance understanding and application in precision oncology.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchNeoplasmsPrecision MedicineHumanscancer researchcancer similarity metricspatient similarityprecision oncologyscoping review

Identifiers

PMID40824687
PMCPMC12402742

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.