ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2014
Biomarker testing for breast, lung, and gastroesophageal cancers at NCI designated cancer centers.
Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Testing forOncoTargets and therapy · 2021Review
- Predictive biomarkers for sacituzumab govitecan efficacy in Trop-2-expressing triple-negative breast cancer.Oncotarget · 2020Article
- A National Assessment of Diagnostic Test Use for Patients with Advanced NSCLC and Factors Influencing Physician Decision-Making.American health & drug benefits · 2020Article
- Improving patient selection for adjuvant therapy in high-risk renal cell carcinoma.Annals of translational medicine · 2019Article
- Implementation of Novel Molecular Biomarkers for Non-small Cell Lung Cancer in the Netherlands: How to Deal With Increasing Complexity.Frontiers in oncology · 2019Review
- Suboptimal concordance in testing and retesting results of triple-negative breast carcinoma cases among laboratories: one institution experience.Cancer cell international · 2019Article
- Use of Next-Generation Sequencing Tests to Guide Cancer Treatment: Results From a Nationally Representative Survey of Oncologists in the United States.JCO precision oncology · 2018Article
- Overexpression of S100A13 protein is associated with tumor angiogenesis and poor survival in patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer.Thoracic cancer · 2018Article
- The mechanisms of radioresistance in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and current strategies in radiosensitivity.Journal of thoracic disease · 2017Review
- Medical Oncologists' Experiences in Using Genomic Testing for Lung and Colorectal Cancer Care.Journal of oncology practice · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMolecular biomarkers, a cornerstone of precision oncology, are critical in breast, gastroesophageal, and non-small cell lung cancer management (BC, GEC, NSCLC). Testing practices are intensely debated, impacting diagnostic quality and affecting pathologists, oncologists and patients. However, little is known about testing approaches used in practice. Our study described biomarker practices in BC, GEC, and NSCLC at the leading US cancer centers.
methodsWe conducted a survey of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) designated centers on BC, GEC, and NSCLC biomarker testing. We used simple frequencies to describe practices, two-sided Fisher's exact test and two-sided McNemar's test for cross-cancer comparison. All statistical tests were two-sided.
resultsFor BC human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), 39% of centers combine guidelines by using in situ hybridization (ISH) and immunohistochemistry (IHC) concurrently, and 21% reflex-test beyond guideline-recommended IHC2+. For GEC HER2, 44% use ISH and IHC concurrently, and 28% reflex-test beyond IHC2+. In NSCLC, the use of IHC is limited to 4% for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and 7% for anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK). 43.5% test NSCLC biomarkers on oncologist order; 34.5% run all biomarkers upfront, and 22% use a sequential protocol. NSCLC external testing is statistically significantly higher than BC (P < .0001) and GEC (P < .0001). NSCLC internally developed tests are statistically significantly more common than BC (P < .0001) and GEC (P < .0001).
conclusionsAt the NCI cancer centers, biomarker testing practices vary, but exceeding guidelines is a common practice for established biomarkers and emerging practice for newer biomarkers. Use of internally developed tests declines as biomarkers mature. Implementation of multibiomarker protocols is lagging. Our study represents a step toward developing a biomarker testing practice landscape.
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.