Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40759731›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Clinical oncology2025

Rethinking cancer of unknown primary: from diagnostic challenge to targeted treatment.

Maria Pouyiourou, Tilmann Bochtler, Chantal Pauli, Holger Moch, Alexander Brobeil, Klaus Pantel, Albrecht Stenzinger, Alwin Krämer

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Clinical oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. SEOM-GECOD clinical guideline for cancer of unknown primary (update 2025).Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Guideline
  2. European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Maria PouyiourouClinical Cooperation Unit Molecular Hematology/Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and Department of Internal Medicine V, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9296-3784
Tilmann BochtlerClinical Cooperation Unit Molecular Hematology/Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and Department of Internal Medicine V, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4162-7881
Chantal PauliDepartment of Pathology and Molecular Pathology, University and University Hospital Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
Holger MochDepartment of Pathology and Molecular Pathology, University and University Hospital Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7986-2839
Alexander BrobeilInstitute of Pathology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Klaus PantelInstitute of Tumour Biology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5736-2772
Albrecht StenzingerInstitute of Pathology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1001-103X
Alwin KrämerClinical Cooperation Unit Molecular Hematology/Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and Department of Internal Medicine V, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. a.kraemer@dkfz.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8232-9982

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cancer of unknown primary (CUP) is a metastatic malignancy for which a primary site of origin cannot be identified despite a thorough and standardized diagnostic work-up, and accounts for 1-3% of all malignancies. An unfavourable subgroup of CUP has a poor prognosis, with a median overall survival of <1 year when treated with current standard-of-care platinum-based chemotherapy. Virtually no progress in elucidating the disease biology and improving outcomes for patients with unfavourable CUP has been made over the past several decades, including a failure of initial randomized clinical trials to demonstrate the superiority of tissue-of-origin (ToO) identification by gene-expression profiling and subsequent primary-site-directed treatment over standard chemotherapy. However, large-cohort randomized trials have now shown that molecularly guided therapy improves outcomes for patients with CUP harbouring an actionable target, both in a tissue-agnostic as well as a primary tumour site-specific context. Moreover, data from non-randomized phase II trials suggest that immunotherapy using immune-checkpoint inhibitors can be beneficial even in patients with CUP that has relapsed after, or is refractory to, standard chemotherapy. In addition, a plethora of refined and novel strategies, including DNA and RNA sequencing, DNA-methylation profiling, circulating tumour DNA analysis, and artificial intelligence-based pathology, have been leveraged to facilitate ToO identification. In light of these developments, we review current ToO methodologies and compare the evidence supporting the use of a primary tumour site-guided approach versus a histology-agnostic approach to the management of CUP. We also discuss whether CUP can be viewed as a model disease for the development of histology-agnostic precision oncology treatment strategies.

Indexed as

Molecular Targeted TherapyNeoplasms, Unknown PrimaryBiomarkers, TumorHumansPrognosisBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.