4.4 Review

Development of a translational medicine protocol for an NCTN genitourinary clinical trial: Critical steps, common pitfalls and a basic guide to translational clinical research

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2018.06.008

关键词

Translational medicine

资金

  1. SEED grant from the HOPE Foundation
  2. VHA [BX003692-01]
  3. John P. Hanson Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Translational medicine (TM) components of prospective clinical trials provide an invaluable opportunity to test hypotheses that contribute to our knowledge of human disease biology and/ or the mechanism of action of a given therapeutic intervention. Our ability to sample tumors and their microenvironment, and the depth and breadth of biological information that can be extracted from them, has increased exponentially in recent years. This information is critical to guide the next steps clinical research if we are to accelerate the pace of progress in cancer treatment. Thus, TM studies should be considered key components of any clinical trial. However, TM studies are costly and biologic sampling can impose significant morbidity on our patients. Therefore, TM investigators should be engaged early in the design process (similar to a statistician) to ensure that the most imperative research questions are rigourosly defined, that the obtained specimens can be used to answer them and that the results will serve as the foundation for additional studies. In this review, we focus on TM studies in the context of the National Cancer Institute's National Clinical Trials Network trials and offer a description of the genesis of TM components, methods in sample acquisition and biomarker research, and a guide to funding mechanisms, in order to provide a blueprint for future TM research protocols. While TM studies can take many forms, the research discussed primarily focusses on basic and translational research involving molecular, cellular, and immunobiology. (C) 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据