ArticlePLoS medicine2017
Clinical applicability and cost of a 46-gene panel for genomic analysis of solid tumours: Retrospective validation and prospective audit in the UK National Health Service.
Article in PLoS medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 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
30 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the Cost of Genomic Testing for Biomarker-Driven Therapies in Oncology.Oncology and therapy · 2026Article
- Genodermatosis among the southwestern Saudi population: The pattern and the need for a premarital genetic screening protocol.Saudi medical journal · 2025Article
- Diagnosing Burkitt Lymphoma in Sub-Saharan Africa by Sequencing of Circulating Tumor DNA: A Comparative Microcosting Study.Value in health regional issues · 2025Article
- Costs of biomarker testing in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a global study comparing next-generation sequencing and single-gene testing.The journal of pathology. Clinical research · 2025Observational
- Targeted therapy guided by circulating tumor DNA analysis in advanced gastrointestinal tumors.Nature medicine · 2025Article
- The economic costs of precision medicine for clinical translational research among children with high-risk cancer.NPJ precision oncology · 2024Article
- Article
- Differences in Willingness to UndergoJournal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Onco-fertility and personalized testing for potential for loss of ovarian reserve in patients undergoing chemotherapy: proposed next steps for development of genetic testing to predict changes in ovarian reserve.Fertility research and practice · 2021Review
- A Novel XGBoost Method to Infer the Primary Lesion of 20 Solid Tumor Types From Gene Expression Data.Frontiers in genetics · 2021Article
- Article
- Review
- Evaluation of Next Generation Sequencing for Detecting HER2 Copy Number in Breast and Gastric Cancers.Pathology oncology research : POR · 2020Article
- European Society for Immunodeficiencies (ESID) and European Reference Network on Rare Primary Immunodeficiency, Autoinflammatory and Autoimmune Diseases (ERN RITA) Complement Guideline: Deficiencies, Diagnosis, and Management.Journal of clinical immunology · 2020Article
- Genetic Characterization of Molecular Targets in Korean Patients with Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors.Journal of gastric cancer · 2020Article
- Identification of Circulating Genomic and Metabolic Biomarkers in Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma.Cancers · 2019Article
- Article
- Identification of a Combined RNA Prognostic Signature in Adenocarcinoma of the Lung.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2019Article
- Bioinformatics for precision oncology.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2019Review
- Application of a Neural Network Whole Transcriptome-Based Pan-Cancer Method for Diagnosis of Primary and Metastatic Cancers.JAMA network open · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSingle gene tests to predict whether cancers respond to specific targeted therapies are performed increasingly often. Advances in sequencing technology, collectively referred to as next generation sequencing (NGS), mean the entire cancer genome or parts of it can now be sequenced at speed with increased depth and sensitivity. However, translation of NGS into routine cancer care has been slow. Healthcare stakeholders are unclear about the clinical utility of NGS and are concerned it could be an expensive addition to cancer diagnostics, rather than an affordable alternative to single gene testing. METHODS AND
findingsWe validated a 46-gene hotspot cancer panel assay allowing multiple gene testing from small diagnostic biopsies. From 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2013, solid tumour samples (including non-small-cell lung carcinoma [NSCLC], colorectal carcinoma, and melanoma) were sequenced in the context of the UK National Health Service from 351 consecutively submitted prospective cases for which treating clinicians thought the patient had potential to benefit from more extensive genetic analysis. Following histological assessment, tumour-rich regions of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) sections underwent macrodissection, DNA extraction, NGS, and analysis using a pipeline centred on Torrent Suite software. With a median turnaround time of seven working days, an integrated clinical report was produced indicating the variants detected, including those with potential diagnostic, prognostic, therapeutic, or clinical trial entry implications. Accompanying phenotypic data were collected, and a detailed cost analysis of the panel compared with single gene testing was undertaken to assess affordability for routine patient care. Panel sequencing was successful for 97% (342/351) of tumour samples in the prospective cohort and showed 100% concordance with known mutations (detected using cobas assays). At least one mutation was identified in 87% (296/342) of tumours. A locally actionable mutation (i.e., available targeted treatment or clinical trial) was identified in 122/351 patients (35%). Forty patients received targeted treatment, in 22/40 (55%) cases solely due to use of the panel. Examination of published data on the potential efficacy of targeted therapies showed theoretically actionable mutations (i.e., mutations for which targeted treatment was potentially appropriate) in 66% (71/107) and 39% (41/105) of melanoma and NSCLC patients, respectively. At a cost of £339 (US$449) per patient, the panel was less expensive locally than performing more than two or three single gene tests. Study limitations include the use of FFPE samples, which do not always provide high-quality DNA, and the use of "real world" data: submission of cases for sequencing did not always follow clinical guidelines, meaning that when mutations were detected, patients were not always eligible for targeted treatments on clinical grounds.
conclusionsThis study demonstrates that more extensive tumour sequencing can identify mutations that could improve clinical decision-making in routine cancer care, potentially improving patient outcomes, at an affordable level for healthcare providers.
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.