Trial reportContemporary clinical trials2014
Comparative effectiveness of next generation genomic sequencing for disease diagnosis: design of a randomized controlled trial in patients with colorectal cancer/polyposis syndromes.
Trial report in Contemporary clinical trials, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Next-generation sequencing for guiding matched targeted therapies in people with relapsed or metastatic cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Unsolved challenges of clinical whole-exome sequencing: a systematic literature review of end-users' views.BMC medical genomics · 2016Pooled it
- Clinical exome sequencing vs. usual care for hereditary colorectal cancer diagnosis: A pilot comparative effectiveness study.Contemporary clinical trials · 2019Trial
- Patient preferences for massively parallel sequencing genetic testing of colorectal cancer risk: a discrete choice experiment.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2018Trial
- Design of a randomized controlled trial for genomic carrier screening in healthy patients seeking preconception genetic testing.Contemporary clinical trials · 2017Trial
- Radiogenomics predicts the expression of microRNA-1246 in the serum of esophageal cancer patients.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Insurance coverage does not predict outcomes of genetic testing: The search for meaning in payer decisions for germline cancer tests.Journal of genetic counseling · 2019Article
- Exome sequences versus sequential gene testing in the UK highly specialised Service for Limb Girdle Muscular Dystrophy.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2017Article
- The NextGen Study: patient motivation for participation in genome sequencing for carrier status.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2017Article
- Is "incidental finding" the best term?: a study of patients' preferences.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2017Article
- Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium: Accelerating Evidence-Based Practice of Genomic Medicine.American journal of human genetics · 2016Article
- Next Generation Sequencing in the Clinic: a Patterns of Care Study in a Retrospective Cohort of Subjects Referred to a Genetic Medicine Clinic for Suspected Lynch Syndrome.Journal of genetic counseling · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Whole exome and whole genome sequencing are applications of next generation sequencing transforming clinical care, but there is little evidence whether these tests improve patient outcomes or if they are cost effective compared to current standard of care. These gaps in knowledge can be addressed by comparative effectiveness and patient-centered outcomes research. We designed a randomized controlled trial that incorporates these research methods to evaluate whole exome sequencing compared to usual care in patients being evaluated for hereditary colorectal cancer and polyposis syndromes. Approximately 220 patients will be randomized and followed for 12 months after return of genomic findings. Patients will receive findings associated with colorectal cancer in a first return of results visit, and findings not associated with colorectal cancer (incidental findings) during a second return of results visit. The primary outcome is efficacy to detect mutations associated with these syndromes; secondary outcomes include psychosocial impact, cost-effectiveness and comparative costs. The secondary outcomes will be obtained via surveys before and after each return visit. The expected challenges in conducting this randomized controlled trial include the relatively low prevalence of genetic disease, difficult interpretation of some genetic variants, and uncertainty about which incidental findings should be returned to patients. The approaches utilized in this study may help guide other investigators in clinical genomics to identify useful outcome measures and strategies to address comparative effectiveness questions about the clinical implementation of genomic sequencing in clinical care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.