ArticleCancer2020
Targeting fusions for improved outcomes in oncology treatment.
Article in Cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 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
32 citing papers in PubMed.
- Claudin 18.2 Targeting: A Pan-Cancer Perspective.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2026Review
- WIN-MTB-2024017 - WIN International Molecular Tumor Board: A 48-year-old female with multiple primary cancers.Oncotarget · 2026Article
- Gene fusions in melanocytic lesions: an updated comprehensive review.Journal of pathology and translational medicine · 2026Article
- NRG1 fusion-positive solid tumors: clinical detection, genomic landscape, and real-world data in pancreatic cancer.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2026Article
- The actionable transcriptome: a framework for incorporating RNA sequencing into precision oncology.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026Review
- Plasma cell leukemia: genomic features and their potential relevance for exploring clinical actionability.Blood advances · 2026Article
- The GF-NEO discovery platform unveils a [KQE][DG] sequence motif within fusion neoantigens in pediatric cancer.iScience · 2026Article
- DNA and RNA-based next-generation sequencing for companion diagnostic rearrangement detection in solid tumors.The oncologist · 2026Article
- Taletrectinib: First Approval.Drugs · 2026Review
- How Do Cancer Cells Fuse and Why?Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2026Review
- Cracking the resistance code: The molecular reclassification of cancer and precision therapy strategies.Seminars in cancer biology · 2025Review
- Molecular Characterization of Oncogenic Gene Fusions in a Large Real-World Cohort of Solid Tumors.Cancer research communications · 2025Article
- Evaluating Gene Fusions as Prognostic Biomarkers and Therapeutic Targets in Immune Checkpoint Blockade-Treated Advanced Melanoma: A Retrospective Analysis.Cancer research communications · 2025Article
- Article
- Detection of oncogenic fusions in colorectal cancer using a partner-agnostic next-generation sequencing approach.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- Tumour-agnostic kinase inhibitors.Nature reviews. Drug discovery · 2025Review
- VOPP1::EGFR fusion is associated with NFκB pathway activation in a glioneural tumor with histological features of ganglioglioma.Acta neuropathologica communications · 2025Article
- Oncogenic gene fusions in cancer: from biology to therapy.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2025Review
- Discovery of Gene Fusions in Driver-Negative Cancer Samples From the National Cancer Institute-Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice Screening Cohort.JCO precision oncology · 2024Article
- FUS::DDIT3 Fusion Protein in the Development of Myxoid Liposarcoma and Possible Implications for Therapy.Biomolecules · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFusions are increasingly pursued as oncology therapeutic targets. The current study evaluated differences in outcomes for fusion versus nonfusion targets.
methodsOutcomes were compared for patients with fusions versus those with other alterations for US Food and Drug Administration-approved single agents (from package inserts) and for patients treated at the University of California at San Diego.
resultsA total of 28 drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (6189 patients) were included in the analysis. The median response rate was 68% versus 50% for fusions versus nonfusion matches (odds ratio [OR], 1.67; P < .0001); solid tumor therapies had an OR of 2.07 (P < .0001) and hematologic therapies had an OR of 3.35 (P < .0001) for fusion versus nonfusion targets. The University of California at San Diego analysis included 79 patients in whom fusions were treated of the 2455 patients screened. Patients matched to fusions were found to have a longer median progression-free survival (PFS) (11.6 months; 95% CI, 4.0-35.4 months) compared with those unmatched to fusions (4.9 months; 95% CI, 3.5-8.8 months) (P = .034). Patients with fusions matched to other alterations present in the tumor had a median PFS that was indistinguishable from that of those patients with fusions who were treated with unmatched therapy (4.0 months vs 5.0 months; P = .75).
conclusionsSignificantly higher response rates and a longer PFS were observed when targeting fusions compared with nonfusions. The observations reported in the current study suggest that fusions are important targets and that additional studies are needed to confirm that optimized therapy may require targeting fusions, even in the presence of other alterations.
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.