Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 647

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Pilot Study Using Molecular Profiling of Patients' Tumors to Find Potential Targets and Select Treatments for Their Refractory Cancers

Von Hoff, Daniel D., Stephenson, Joseph J., Rosen, Peter, Loesch, David M., Borad, Mitesh J., Anthony, Stephen, Jameson, Gayle, Brown, Susan, Cantafio, Nina, Richards, Donald A., Fitch, Tom R., Wasserman, Ernesto, Fernandez, Cristian, Green, Sylvan, Sutherland, William, Bittner, Michael, Alarcon, Arlet, Mallery, David, Penny, Robert·2010·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the progression-free survival (PFS) using a treatment regimen selected by molecular profiling (MP) of a patient's tumor with the PFS for the most recent regimen on which the patient had experienced progression (ie, patient as his own control). Patients and Methods: Patients with refractory metastatic cancer had tissue samples submitted for MP in two formats including formalin-fixed tissue for immunohistochemistry and fluorescent in situ hybridization assays and immediately frozen tissue for oligonucleotide microarray (MA) gene expression assays (all performed in a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments [ CLIA ] –certified laboratory). The MP approach was deemed of clinical benefit for the individual patient who had a PFS ratio (PFS on MP-selected therapy/PFS on prior therapy) of ≥ 1.3. Results: In 86 patients who had MP attempted, there was a molecular target detected in 84 (98%). Sixty-six of the 84 patients were treated according to MP results. Eighteen (27%) of 66 patients had a PFS ratio of ≥ 1.3 (95% CI, 17% to 38%; one-sided, one-sample P = .007). Therefore, the null hypothesis (that ≤ 15% of this patient population would have a PFS ratio of ≥ 1.3) was rejected. Conclusion: It is possible to identify molecular targets in patients' tumors from nine different centers across the United States. In 27% of patients, the MP approach resulted in a longer PFS on an MP-suggested regimen than on the regimen on which the patient had just experienced progression. Issues to be considered in interpretation of this study include limited prior experience with patients as their own controls as a study end point and overall patient attrition.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jco.2009.26.5983

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 647

Metadata

Authors
Von Hoff, D. D., Stephenson, J. J., Rosen, P., Loesch, D. M., Borad, M. J., Anthony, S., Jameson, G., Brown, S., Cantafio, N., Richards, D. A., Fitch, T. R., Wasserman, E., Fernandez, C., Green, S., Sutherland, W., Bittner, M., Alarcon, A., Mallery, D., & Penny, R.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2010-11-20
Volume
28
Issue
33
Pages
4877-4883
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2133296598
Cited by
647
References
0
FWCI
8.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Pilot Study Using Molecular Profiling of Patients' Tumors to Find Potential Targets and Select Treatments for Their Refractory Cancers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2009.26.5983
The paper
Von Hoff, D. D., Stephenson, J. J., Rosen, P., Loesch, D. M., Borad, M. J., Anthony, S., Jameson, G., Brown, S., Cantafio, N., Richards, D. A., Fitch, T. R., Wasserman, E., Fernandez, C., Green, S., Sutherland, W., Bittner, M., Alarcon, A., Mallery, D., & Penny, R. (2010). Pilot Study Using Molecular Profiling of Patients' Tumors to Find Potential Targets and Select Treatments for Their Refractory Cancers. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2009.26.5983

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.