Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32923847›Full record

ReviewJCO precision oncology2019

Next-Generation Sequencing and the Clinical Oncology Workflow: Data Challenges, Proposed Solutions, and a Call to Action.

Jake R Conway, Jeremy L Warner, Wendy S Rubinstein, Robert S Miller

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JCO precision oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Introducing HL7 FHIR Genomics Operations: a developer-friendly approach to genomics-EHR integration.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Impact of integrating genomic data into the electronic health record on genetics care delivery.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jake R ConwayHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Jeremy L WarnerVanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.
Wendy S RubinsteinAmerican Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA.
Robert S MillerAmerican Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA.

Funding

Training Program in Bioinformatics and Integrative GenomicsT32HG002295 · NHGRI · MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY · PI Peter J Park · 2001 to 2026
$15.8M
Network Analysis for a Data-Driven Approach to Cancer CareU01CA231840 · NCI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI WARNER, JEREMY LYLE · 2018 to 2020
$1.2M
Redefining the Molecular Landscape of MelanomaF31CA239347 · NCI · HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL · PI CONWAY, JAKE · 2019 to 2021
$100k
NCI NIH HHS F31 CA239347NCI NIH HHS U01 CA231840NHGRI NIH HHS T32 HG002295
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeNext-generation sequencing (NGS) of tumor and germline DNA is foundational for precision oncology, with rapidly expanding diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic implications. Although few question the importance of NGS in modern oncology care, the process of gathering primary molecular data, integrating it into electronic health records, and optimally using it as part of a clinical workflow remains far from seamless. Numerous challenges persist around data standards and interoperability, and clinicians frequently face difficulties in managing the growing amount of genomic knowledge required to care for patients and keep up to date.

methodsThis review provides a descriptive analysis of genomic data workflows for NGS data in clinical oncology and issues that arise from the inconsistent use of standards for sharing data across systems. Potential solutions are described.

resultsNGS technology, especially for somatic genomics, is well established and widely used in routine patient care, quality measurement, and research. Available genomic knowledge bases play an evolving role in patient management but lack harmonization with one another. Questions about their provenance and timeliness of updating remain. Potentially useful standards for sharing genomic data, such as HL7 FHIR and mCODE, remain primarily in the research and/or development stage. Nonetheless, their impact will likely be seen as uptake increases across care settings and laboratories. The specific use case of ASCO CancerLinQ, as a clinicogenomic database, is discussed.

conclusionBecause the electronic health records of today seem ill suited for managing genomic data, other solutions are required, including universal data standards and applications that use application programming interfaces, along with a commitment on the part of sequencing laboratories to consistently provide structured genomic data for clinical use.

Identifiers

PMID32923847
PMCPMC7446333

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.