ArticleESMO open2020
Comparison of three commercial decision support platforms for matching of next-generation sequencing results with therapies in patients with cancer.
Article in ESMO open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 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
26 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing clinical decision support system tools in precision oncology: piloting ring testing.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2026Article
- Survey of diagnostic laboratories highlights need for improved standards in somatic genomic testing and reporting.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Article
- Towards an ecosystem of clinical decision support tools for precision cancer medicine.NPJ precision oncology · 2026Review
- AI for clinical trials in oncology.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2026Review
- The Knowledge Connector decision support system for multiomics-based precision oncology.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Advancing the adoption of oncology decision support tools in Europe: insights from CAN.HEAL.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- A Cross-Sectional Study of Variant Interpretation and Reporting of NGS Data Using Tertiary Analysis Software: NavifyOncology and therapy · 2025Article
- Blending space and time to talk about cancer in extended reality.NPJ digital medicine · 2024Review
- Molecular diagnostics tailoring personalized cancer therapy-an oncologist's view.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2024Review
- Detection of minimal residual disease in acute myeloid leukemia: evaluating utility and challenges.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Article
- Review
- Clinical reporting for personalized cancer genomics requires extensive access to subscription-only literature.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2023Article
- Clinical Testing for Tumor Cell-Free DNA: College of American Pathologists Proficiency Programs Reveal Practice Trends.Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine · 2023Article
- Evaluation and limitations of different approaches among COVID-19 fatal cases using whole-exome sequencing data.BMC genomics · 2023Article
- Assessment of an automated approach for variant interpretation in screening for monogenic disorders: A single-center study.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2022Review
- CancerCellTracker: a brightfield time-lapse microscopy framework for cancer drug sensitivity estimation.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2022Article
- Recommendations for a practical implementation of circulating tumor DNA mutation testing in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.ESMO open · 2022Review
- Combinatorial Power of cfDNA, CTCs and EVs in Oncology.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Findings from precision oncology in the clinic: rare, novel variants are a significant contributor to scaling molecular diagnostics.BMC medical genomics · 2022Article
- A clinician's handbook for using ctDNA throughout the patient journey.Molecular cancer · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivePrecision oncology depends on translating molecular data into therapy recommendations. However, with the growing complexity of next-generation sequencing-based tests, clinical interpretation of somatic genomic mutations has evolved into a formidable task. Here, we compared the performance of three commercial clinical decision support tools, that is, NAVIFY Mutation Profiler (NAVIFY; Roche), QIAGEN Clinical Insight (QCI) Interpret (QIAGEN) and CureMatch Bionov (CureMatch).
methodsIn order to obtain the current status of the respective tumour genome, we analysed cell-free DNA from patients with metastatic breast, colorectal or non-small cell lung cancer. We evaluated somatic copy number alterations and in parallel applied a 77-gene panel (AVENIO ctDNA Expanded Panel). We then assessed the concordance of tier classification approaches between NAVIFY and QCI and compared the strategies to determine actionability among all three platforms. Finally, we quantified the alignment of treatment suggestions across all decision tools.
resultsEach platform varied in its mode of variant classification and strategy for identifying druggable targets and clinical trials, which resulted in major discrepancies. Even the frequency of concordant actionable events for tier I-A or tier I-B classifications was only 4.3%, 9.5% and 28.4% when comparing NAVIFY with QCI, NAVIFY with CureMatch and CureMatch with QCI, respectively, and the obtained treatment recommendations differed drastically.
conclusionsTreatment decisions based on molecular markers appear at present to be arbitrary and dependent on the chosen strategy. As a consequence, tumours with identical molecular profiles would be differently treated, which challenges the promising concepts of genome-informed medicine.
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.