ArticleThe oncologist2020
Blood-Based Next-Generation Sequencing Analysis of Appendiceal Cancers.
Article in The oncologist, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prediction of distant metastasis and survival of appendiceal cancer patients: a SEER population-based study.Translational cancer research · 2026Article
- Review
- Circulating tumor DNA in appendiceal malignancies: a comprehensive review of clinical applications and limitations.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Precision oncology for advanced-stage adenocarcinoma of the appendix: comprehensive molecular characterisation identifies actionable lesions and potential predictive biomarkers.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Advancing Precision Medicine: The Role of Genetic Testing and Sequencing Technologies in Identifying Biological Markers for Rare Cancers.Cancer medicine · 2025Review
- The Landscape of ctDNA in Appendiceal Adenocarcinoma.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2025Article
- Review
- Brain molecular mechanisms in Rasmussen encephalitis.Epilepsia · 2023Article
- A GNAS Gene Mutation's Independent Expression in the Growth of Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cancers · 2022Review
- Blood-Based Next-Generation Sequencing in Adrenocortical Carcinoma.The oncologist · 2022Article
- Anchored Multiplex PCR Custom Melanoma Next Generation Sequencing Panel for Analysis of Circulating Tumor DNA.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- In Reply.The oncologist · 2020Article
- Regarding Blood-Based Next-Generation Sequencing Analysis of Appendiceal Cancers.The oncologist · 2020Article
- Design and Testing of a Custom Melanoma Next Generation Sequencing Panel for Analysis of Circulating Tumor DNA.Cancers · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on byIn Reply.2020
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAppendiceal cancers (ACs) are rare. The genomic landscape of ACs has not been well studied. The aim of this study was to confirm the feasibility of next-generation sequencing (NGS) using circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in ACs and characterize common genomic alterations. MATERIALS AND
methodsMolecular alterations in 372 plasma samples from 303 patients with AC using clinical-grade NGS of ctDNA (Guardant360) across multiple institutions were evaluated. Test detects single nucleotide variants in 54-73 genes, copy number amplifications, fusions, and indels in selected genes.
resultsA total of 303 patients with AC were evaluated, of which 169 (56%) were female. Median age was 56.8 (25-83) years. ctDNA NGS testing was performed on 372 plasma samples; 48 patients had testing performed twice, 9 patients had testing performed three times, and 1 patient had testing performed four times. Genomic alterations were defined in 207 (n = 207/372, 55.6%) samples, and 288 alterations were identified excluding variants of uncertain significance and synonymous mutations. Alterations were identified in at least one sample from 184 patients; TP53-associated genes (n = 71, 38.6%), KRAS (n = 33, 17.9%), APC (n = 14, 7.6%), EGFR (n = 12, 6.5%), BRAF (n = 11, 5.9%), NF1 (n = 10, 5.4%), MYC (n = 9, 4.9%), GNAS (n = 8, 4.3%), MET (n = 6, 3.3%), PIK3CA (n = 5, 2.7%), and ATM (n = 5, 2.7%). Other low-frequency but clinically relevant genomic alterations were as follows: AR (n = 4, 2.2%), TERT (n = 4, 2.2%), ERBB2 (n = 4, 2.2%), SMAD4 (n = 3, 1.6%), CDK4 (n = 2, 1.1%), NRAS (n = 2, 1.1%), FGFR1 (n = 2, 1.1%), FGFR2 (n = 2, 1.1%), PTEN (n = 2, 1.1%), RB1 (n = 2, 1.1%), and CDK6, CDKN2A, BRCA1, BRCA2, JAK2, IDH2, MAPK, NTRK1, CDH1, ARID1A, and PDGFRA (n = 1, 0.5%).
conclusionEvaluation of ctDNA is feasible among patients with AC. The frequency of genomic alterations is similar to that previously reported in tissue NGS. Liquid biopsies are not invasive and can provide personalized options for targeted therapies in patients with AC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The complexity of appendiceal cancer and its unique genomic characteristics suggest that customized combination therapy may be required for many patients. Theoretically, as more oncogenic pathways are discovered and more targeted therapies are approved, customized treatment based on the patient's unique molecular profile will lead to personalized care and improve patient outcomes. Liquid biopsies are noninvasive, cost-effective, and promising methods that provide patients with access to personalized treatment.
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.