Molecular tumor board—urothelial cancer
Urologe, ISSN: 1433-0563, Vol: 58, Issue: 7, Page: 760-767
2019
- 17Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Review Description
Background: Molecular tumor boards (MTB) are becoming more common. There are several molecular alterations in urothelial cancer a molecular tumor board can potentially rely on. Objectives: The aim is to specify molecular alterations and their correlations with different clinical endpoints and to highlight potential questions addressed to a MTB for urothelial cancer. Materials and methods: Descriptive review of the literature based on PubMed. Results: The landscape of molecular alterations in urothelial cancer is heterogeneous. Thus, recent biomarker research has been focusing on biomarker panels and classifiers instead of single biomarkers. Recently, molecular subtypes of urothelial cancer have been identified and correlated with different clinical endpoints. Furthermore, circulating tumor cells and tumor DNA are under investigation as potential biomarkers. In addition to treatment response and prognosis, molecular markers are also needed to improve clinical staging prior to radical cystectomy or for proper patient selection for neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Erdafitinib is the first targeted therapy (fibroblast growth factor receptor [FGFR] alteration) in urothelial cancer that was recently approved (in the USA). Conclusions: Due to the lack of external validation, none of the identified biomarkers is currently established in clinical routine. In addition, there is no single driver mutation in urothelial cancer that facilitates the development of biomarkers and targeted therapies.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85067038356&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00120-019-0967-5; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31172245; http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00120-019-0967-5; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00120-019-0967-5; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00120-019-0967-5
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know