ArticleTranslational oncology2019
Cancer Panel Assay for Precision Oncology Clinic: Results from a 1-Year Study.
Article in Translational oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Metachronous triple primary malignancies: a case report of NGS-guided multidisciplinary management and literature review.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Tropomyosin 3 Gene Fusions in Cancers: From Mechanisms to Treatments-A Comprehensive Review.Cancer medicine · 2025Review
- Clinical implementation of next-generation sequencing testing and genomically-matched therapy: a real-world data in a tertiary hospital.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Real-World Data and Clinical Implications of Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS)-Based Analysis in Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Clinical Application of Next-Generation Sequencing in Patients With Breast Cancer: Real-World Data.Journal of breast cancer · 2022Article
- [BRAF-V600E testing in metastatic colorectal cancer and new, chemotherapy-free therapy options. German version].Der Pathologe · 2021Review
- BRAF testing in metastatic colorectal carcinoma and novel, chemotherapy-free therapeutic options.Der Pathologe · 2021Review
- Differences in Somatic Mutation Profiles between Korean Gastric Cancer and Gastric Adenoma Patients.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based cancer panel tests are actively being applied in the clinic for precision oncology. Given the importance of NGS panel tests in the palliative clinical setting, it is critical to understand success rates, factors responsible for test failures, and the incidence of clinically meaningful genetic alterations. We performed NGS cancer panel test with tumors from the stomach (n = 234), colorectum (n = 196), and rare tumors (n = 105) from 535 recurrent or metastatic cancer patients for 1 year. Sequencing was successful in 483 (95.3%) archival tumor samples to find single nucleotide variant (SNV), copy number alteration (CNA), and fusion. NGS testing was unsuccessful in 52 (9.7%) specimens due to inadequate tissue (n = 28), low tumor volume (n = 19), and poor quality of nucleic acid (n = 5). According to the Tier system, variants were classified as Tier IA, 0.8%; IIC, 10.3%; IID, 2.0%; III, 66.7% for gastric: Tier IA, 3.6%; IIC, 11.6% for colorectal: Tier IA, 1.6%; IIC, 13.5%; IID, 0.5%; III, 70.8% for melanoma, and Tier IA, 9.1%; IIC, 1.8%; IID, 1.0%; III, 66.4% for GIST. In total, 30.8% of 483 sequenced cases harbored clinically meaningful variants. In Tier IA, KRAS and ERBB2 were the most commonly altered genes. Interestingly, we identified CD274 (PD-L1) amplification, PTPN11 (SHP2) SNV, TPM3-NTRK1 fusion, and FGFR3-TACC3 fusion as a rare (<2%) alteration having therapeutic targets. In conclusion, although small biopsy samples constitute half of cases, informative NGS results were successfully reported in >90% of archival tissue samples, and 30.8% of them harbored clinically meaningful variants.
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.