ReviewClinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico2026
Evidence-steered medicine in oncology: network-aware micro-combinations that safeguard standard of care and potentially improve benefit-risk.
Review in Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Standard oncology regimens often follow a dose-optimization paradigm: intensify a single agent until efficacy emerges or toxicity intervenes. Yet many targets sit in compensatory tumor-host networks that reroute around pathway pressure, while incremental efficacy may plateau as dose rises and toxicity escalates. Clinical reality is further complicated by heterogeneous patient states, including suppressed antigen presentation (e.g., β2-microglobulin loss or antigen-processing/presentation machinery defects), immature or poorly trafficking dendritic cells, and symptom/toxicity burdens that drive dose delays or reductions and erode relative dose intensity. These factors contribute to late-stage monotherapy failures and leave clinicians with a binary choice-more of the same therapy or a complete stop-when the actionable question is often whether a small, precisely timed change could restore the preconditions under which standard-of-care (SoC) therapy works best. Evidence-steered medicine (ESM) proposes a conservative adjunctive framework that adds only tiny, single-pulse exposures ("micro-adjuncts") without delaying or displacing SoC. Each micro-adjunct is pre-specified with a directional mechanistic hypothesis and read out by short-horizon proxies at 48-96 h (e.g., HLA-ABC and TAP1/2 for antigen presentation; CD86/CCR7 for antigen-presenting-cell activation and trafficking readiness; hs-CRP for systemic inflammatory tone; HRV and symptom scores for host readiness). ESM enforces three safety-first gates: a mechanistic sign-consistency check; a transportability/overlap screen to avoid out-of-support exposure; and a banded decision rule that acts only when the pessimistic bound of the expected proxy effect exceeds a preset threshold under strict exposure caps, otherwise defaulting to NO-STEP. Governance features-drug-drug interaction matrices, order-set blocks, one-click rollback, and degrade-to-rules when calibration drifts-aim to convert combination experimentation into an auditable, risk-minimizing bedside layer. This review synthesizes the rationale for micro-dosed, order-aware adjuncts, summarizes implementable class-level candidates using approved agents and routine assays (with investigational items restricted to protocol settings), and outlines an evaluation plan embedded in care that prioritizes feasibility, safety, and mechanistic informativeness while protecting SoC delivery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41986766What 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.