The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Use of Research Biopsies in Clinical Trials: Are Risks and Benefits Adequately Discussed?
Open accessAbstract
Purpose: Although the incorporation of research biopsies into clinical trials is increasing, limited information is available about how study protocols and informed consents integrate and describe their use. Methods: All therapeutic clinical trials in which image-guided research biopsies were performed from January 1, 2005, to October 1, 2010, were identified from an interventional radiology database. Data from study protocols and informed consents were extracted and analyzed. Procedural complications were recorded. Results: A total of 57 clinical trials were identified, of which 38 (67%) contained at least one mandatory biopsy. The analysis of the research biopsy tumor tissue was a study end point in 95% of trials. The primary indication for a research biopsy was for integral biomarker analysis in 32% and for correlative science in 68% of trials. A statistical analytic plan for the correlative science research biopsy tumor tissue was mentioned in 26%, described as exploratory in 51%, and not mentioned in 23% of trials. For studies with mandatory biopsies, biopsy was an eligibility criterion in 71% of trials, and a statistical justification for the research biopsy sample size was present in 50% of trials. A total of 745 research biopsies were performed on 576 patients. Overall and major complication rates were 5.2% (39 of 745 biopsies) and 0.8% (six of 745 biopsies), respectively. Complication rates for intrathoracic and abdominal/pelvic solid organ biopsies were 17.1% (36 of 211 biopsies) and 1.6% (three of 189 biopsies), respectively. Site-stratified research biopsy–related risks were discussed in five consents. Conclusion: A better representation of the risks and benefits of research biopsies in study protocols and informed consents is needed.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Cites
Quality of informed consent in cancer clinical trials: a cross-sectional survey
Joffe, S., Cook, E. F., Cleary, P. D., Clark, J. W., & Weeks, J. C. (2001) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(01)06805-2 · Cited by 655
Bench to Bedside: Mapping the Moral Terrain of Clinical Research
Joffe, S., & Miller, F. G. (2008) · Hastings Center Report · doi:10.1353/hcr.2008.0019 · Cited by 122
Cited by
Liquid biopsies come of age: Towards implementation of circulating tumour DNA
Wan, J. C. M., Massie, C., Garcia-Corbacho, J., Mouliere, F., Brenton, J. D., Caldas, C., Pacey, S., Baird, R., & Rosenfeld, N. (2017) · Nature Reviews Cancer · doi:10.1038/nrc.2017.7 · Cited by 2,809
Liquid Biopsies: Genotyping Circulating Tumor DNA
Diaz, L. A., & Bardelli, A. (2014) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2012.45.2011 · Cited by 2,210
Clonal evolution and resistance to EGFR blockade in the blood of colorectal cancer patients
Siravegna, G., Mussolin, B., Buscarino, M., Corti, G., Cassingena, A., Crisafulli, G., Ponzetti, A., Cremolini, C., Amatu, A., Lauricella, C., et al. (2015) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/nm.3870 · Cited by 1,082
Lanman, R. B., Mortimer, S. A., Zill, O. A., Sebisanovic, D., Lopez, R., Blau, S., Collisson, E. A., Divers, S. G., Hoon, D. S. B., Kopetz, E. S., et al. (2015) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0140712 · Cited by 695
The emerging role of cell-free DNA as a molecular marker for cancer management
Bronkhorst, A. J., Ungerer, V., & Holdenrieder, S. (2019) · Biomolecular Detection and Quantification · doi:10.1016/j.bdq.2019.100087 · Cited by 566
Metadata
- Authors
- Overman, M. J., Modak, J., Kopetz, S., Murthy, R., Yao, J. C., Hicks, M. E., Abbruzzese, J. L., & Tam, A. L.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Published
- 2013-01-01
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 17-22
- ISSN
- 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
- 1527-7755
- OpenAlex
- W2076466060
- Cited by
- 314
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 11.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Use of Research Biopsies in Clinical Trials: Are Risks and Benefits Adequately Discussed? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2012.43.1718
- The paper
- Overman, M. J., Modak, J., Kopetz, S., Murthy, R., Yao, J. C., Hicks, M. E., Abbruzzese, J. L., & Tam, A. L. (2013). Use of Research Biopsies in Clinical Trials: Are Risks and Benefits Adequately Discussed? Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2012.43.1718
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.