Open AccessTowards decision-making using individualized risk estimates for personalized medicine: A systematic review of genomic classifiers of solid tumors
Author(s) -
Daniel M. Trifiletti,
Vanessa N. Sturz,
Timothy N. Showalter,
Jennifer M. Lobo
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
plos one
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.99
H-Index - 332
ISSN - 1932-6203
DOI - 10.1371/journal.pone.0176388
Subject(s) - medicine , medline , cinahl , breast cancer , personalized medicine , cancer , systematic review , clinical trial , oncology , cochrane library , meta analysis , bioinformatics , intensive care medicine , psychiatry , political science , psychological intervention , law , biology
Recent advances in the understanding of the genetic underpinnings of cancer offer the promise to customize cancer treatments to the individual through the use of genomic classifiers (GCs). At present, routine clinical utilization of GCs is uncommon and their current scope and status, in a broad sense, are unknown. As part of a registered review (PROSPERO 2014:CRD42014013371), we systematically reviewed the literature evaluating the utility of commercially available GCs by searching Ovid Medline (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and CINAHL on September 2, 2014. We excluded articles involving pediatric malignancies, non-solid or non-invasive cancers, hereditary risk of cancer, non-validated GCs, and GCs involving fewer than 3 biomarkers. A total of 3,625 studies were screened, but only 37 met the pre-specified inclusion criteria. Of these, 15 studies evaluated outcomes and clinical utility of GCs through clinical trials, and the remainder through the use of mathematical models. Most studies (29 of 37) were specific to hormone-receptor positive breast cancer, whereas only 4 studies evaluated GCs in non-breast cancer (prostate, colon, and lung cancers). GCs have spurred excitement across disciplines in recent decades. While there are several GCs that have been validated, the general quality of the data are weak. Further research, including prospective validation is needed, particularly in the non-breast cancer GCs.