| dc.contributor.author | Cuzick, J | en_US |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2018-05-25T11:38:06Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2018-02-21 | en_US |
| dc.date.issued | 2018-01 | en_US |
| dc.date.submitted | 2018-03-01T12:40:55.344Z | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/handle/123456789/39067 | |
| dc.description.abstract | There is a somewhat confused belief that a biomarker must show an interaction effect with a treatment before it can be used to determine the need for such a treatment. This is rarely true for well-established clinical markers such as tumor size or regional lymph node involvement. In many cases, this is also not true for biomarkers, especially when considering nontargeted therapies. Here I argue that for nontargeted treatments prognosis is often more important than interaction with treatment, because it is the absolute and not the relative benefit that matters, and when there is no treatment interaction, the same relative benefit translates into a larger absolute benefit for poor prognosis patients. | en_US |
| dc.format.extent | pky006 - ? | en_US |
| dc.language | eng | en_US |
| dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
| dc.relation.ispartof | JNCI Cancer Spectr | en_US |
| dc.rights | This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. | |
| dc.title | Prognosis vs Treatment Interaction. | en_US |
| dc.type | Article | |
| dc.rights.holder | © The Author(s) 2018. | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.1093/jncics/pky006 | en_US |
| pubs.author-url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31360838 | en_US |
| pubs.issue | 1 | en_US |
| pubs.notes | Not known | en_US |
| pubs.publication-status | Published online | en_US |
| pubs.volume | 2 | en_US |
| dcterms.dateAccepted | 2018-02-21 | en_US |
