ArticleNPJ precision oncology2024
Pharmacogenomic discovery of genetically targeted cancer therapies optimized against clinical outcomes.
Article in NPJ precision oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A functional map of mNature cancer · 2026Article
- PKIDB-informed molecular profiling improves reproducible prediction of cancer kinase-inhibitor response.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Challenges and opportunities for oncology drug repurposing informed by synthetic lethality.NPJ systems biology and applications · 2025Article
- Integrating Artificial Intelligence in Next-Generation Sequencing: Advances, Challenges, and Future Directions.Current issues in molecular biology · 2025Review
- Targeting synthetic lethality: an effective therapeutic approach in ovarian and endometrial cancers.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite the clinical success of dozens of genetically targeted cancer therapies, the vast majority of patients with tumors caused by loss-of-function (LoF) mutations do not have access to these treatments. This is primarily due to the challenge of developing a drug that treats a disease caused by the absence of a protein target. The success of PARP inhibitors has solidified synthetic lethality (SL) as a means to overcome this obstacle. Recent mapping of SL networks using pooled CRISPR-Cas9 screens is a promising approach for expanding this concept to treating cancers driven by additional LoF drivers. In practice, however, translating signals from cell lines, where these screens are typically conducted, to patient outcomes remains a challenge. We developed a pharmacogenomic (PGx) approach called "Clinically Optimized Driver Associated-PGx" (CODA-PGX) that accurately predicts genetically targeted therapies with clinical-stage efficacy in specific LoF driver contexts. Using approved targeted therapies and cancer drugs with available real-world evidence and molecular data from hundreds of patients, we discovered and optimized the key screening principles predictive of efficacy and overall patient survival. In addition to establishing basic technical conventions, such as drug concentration and screening kinetics, we found that replicating the driver perturbation in the right context, as well as selecting patients where those drivers are genuine founder mutations, were key to accurate translation. We used CODA-PGX to screen a diverse collection of clinical stage drugs and report dozens of novel LoF genetically targeted opportunities; many validated in xenografts and by real-world evidence. Notable examples include treating STAG2-mutant tumors with Carboplatin, SMARCB1-mutant tumors with Oxaliplatin, and TP53BP1-mutant tumors with Etoposide or Bleomycin.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.