Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Volume 10 Issue 12, December 2013

Cover image supplied by Irene Chicote and Héctor G. Palmer, Stem Cells and Cancer Laboratory, Vall d’Hebrón Institute of Oncology—VHIO, Barcelona, Spain. Confocal microscopy image of immunofluorescence staining for β-catenin and FOXO3a proteins, as potential markers for prediction of drug response, in a histological section of a human colon carcinoma.

Research Highlight

Top of page ⤴

In Brief

Top of page ⤴

Research Highlight

Top of page ⤴

In Brief

Top of page ⤴

Research Highlight

Top of page ⤴

News & Views

  • Concerns still exist regarding the best use of low-dose CT screening for lung cancer and how to select high-risk individuals who will benefit most from participation in screening programmes. Two studies now indicate factors that may reduce the false-positive rate of lung cancer screening with low-dose CT.

    • Ugo Pastorino
    • Nicola Sverzellati
    News & Views
  • Controversy surrounds the use of mammography for breast cancer screening. This commentary explains why retrospective analyses of women who die from breast cancer do not add to the body of knowledge about the value of screening in young women. Mammographic screening alone cannot be expected to overcome aggressive biology.

    • Martin Eklund
    • Laura J. Esserman
    News & Views
Top of page ⤴

Review Article

  • Establishing breast cancer chemoprevention in standard clinical practice requires advances in many different fields, including biomarker research, the development of more powerful tools to predict and communicate the risks and benefits of treatments and establishing innovative trial designs. In this Review, the authors examine the efforts in breast cancer chemoprevention and explain why the field is progressing slowly than hoped.

    • Kathrin Strasser-Weippl
    • Paul E. Goss
    Review Article
  • Iniparib showed promising results in randomized phase II trials in patients with triple-negative breast cancer; however, negative results from a phase III study in this disease setting, tempered enthusiasm for this agent. The authors of this Review scrutinize the development of iniparib from preclinical studies to registration trials, and identify and discuss the pitfalls in the development of anticancer drugs to prevent future late-stage trial failures.

    • Joaquin Mateo
    • Michael Ong
    • Johann S. de Bono
    Review Article
  • In this Review, the authors describe the pathophysiological effects of chemotherapy and radiotherapy that affect the heart and treatment-related cardiovascular effects in children with cancer. They argue that 5-year event-free oncological survival is no longer the paradigm of successful treatment of childhood cancer; instead overall quality of life is and maximizing oncological efficacy while minimizing toxicity and late-effects should be the ultimate goal.

    • Steven E. Lipshultz
    • Thomas R. Cochran
    • Tracie L. Miller
    Review Article
  • Biopsy of suspected metastatic lesions is recommended, but not always performed in the clinic. Niikura and colleagues outline the rationale and techniques for performing biopsies on suspected breast metastases. The authors describe the issues surrounding biomarker discordance between primary and metastatic tumours and outline the optimal treatment approach to limit such problems.

    • Naoki Niikura
    • Bruno C. Odisio
    • Naoto T. Ueno
    Review Article
Top of page ⤴

Opinion

  • There is much concern in the literature over the lack of reproducibility of many scientific reports. In this Perspective, the authors discuss how cognitive biases in research and flaws in the academic incentive system also contribute to the publication of immature results. The authors suggest some changes to the grant submission and funding system that could further improve the reproducibility of research findings.

    • Lajos Pusztai
    • Christos Hatzis
    • Fabrice Andre
    Opinion
Top of page ⤴

Correspondence

Top of page ⤴

Search

Quick links