ReviewESMO open2016
Integrating next-generation sequencing into clinical oncology: strategies, promises and pitfalls.
Review in ESMO open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 97 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
97 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The prognostic role of tumor mutation burden on survival of breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC cancer · 2022Pooled it
- Rectal Adenocarcinoma With Enteroblastic Differentiation and Hepatic Metastases: A Rare and Aggressive Variant of Colorectal Carcinoma.The American journal of case reports · 2026Article
- Trends and Disparities in the Use of Next-Generation Sequencing in Patients With Cancer in the United States.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Genetic landscape of cancer: mechanisms, key genes, and therapeutic implications.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026Review
- BASECAMP-1 screening study: a model for efficient enrolment in precision oncology clinical trials.BMJ oncology · 2026Article
- Exploratory Identification of Gene Copy Number Cut-Off for NGS-BasedLung Cancer (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Whole-genome landscapes of 1,364 breast cancers.Nature · 2026Article
- Next-Generation Sequencing: A Review of Its Transformative Impact on Cancer Diagnosis, Treatment, and Resistance Management.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Micrometastasis and Isolated Tumor Cells in Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Refining Nodal Staging with Emerging Technologies.Head and neck pathology · 2025Review
- Evolving roles of MET as a therapeutic target in NSCLC and beyond.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2025Review
- Precision oncology: transforming cancer care through personalized medicine.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2025Review
- Predicting immune status and gene mutations in stomach adenocarcinoma patients based on inflammatory response-related prognostic features.Discover oncology · 2025Article
- Hot-spot empowered gold nanoparticles for theranostics in breast cancer.Theranostics · 2025Review
- Review
- iSeq: an integrated tool to fetch public sequencing data.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
- mRNA vaccine development and applications: A special focus on tumors (Review).International journal of oncology · 2024Review
- Evolution of Precision Oncology, Personalized Medicine, and Molecular Tumor Boards.Surgical oncology clinics of North America · 2024Review
- Discordance in Recommendation Between Next-Generation Sequencing Test Reports and Molecular Tumor Boards in India.JCO global oncology · 2024Article
- Genomic characterization of peritoneal lavage cytology-positive gastric cancer.Chinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu · 2024Article
- TCCIA: a comprehensive resource for exploring CircRNA in cancer immunotherapy.Journal for immunotherapy of cancer · 2024Article
37 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We live in an era of genomic medicine. The past five years brought about many significant achievements in the field of cancer genetics, driven by rapidly evolving technologies and plummeting costs of next-generation sequencing (NGS). The official completion of the Cancer Genome Project in 2014 led many to envision the clinical implementation of cancer genomic data as the next logical step in cancer therapy. Stemming from this vision, the term 'precision oncology' was coined to illustrate the novelty of this individualised approach. The basic assumption of precision oncology is that molecular markers detected by NGS will predict response to targeted therapies independently from tumour histology. However, along with a ubiquitous availability of NGS, the complexity and heterogeneity at the individual patient level had to be acknowledged. Not only does the latter present challenges to clinical decision-making based on sequencing data, it is also an obstacle to the rational design of clinical trials. Novel tissue-agnostic trial designs were quickly developed to overcome these challenges. Results from some of these trials have recently demonstrated the feasibility and efficacy of this approach. On the other hand, there is an increasing amount of whole-exome and whole-genome NGS data which allows us to assess ever smaller differences between individual patients with cancer. In this review, we highlight different tumour sequencing strategies currently used for precision oncology, describe their individual strengths and weaknesses, and emphasise their feasibility in different clinical settings. Further, we evaluate the possibility of NGS implementation in current and future clinical trials, and point to the significance of NGS for translational research.
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.