ArticleMolecular genetics & genomic medicine2021
Matching methods in precision oncology: An introduction and illustrative example.
Article in Molecular genetics & genomic medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Genomic Medicine: Considerations for Addressing Health Equity.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2025Article
- Outcomes of Medicare-covered diabetes self-management training for cancer survivors with diabetes.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2025Article
- Addressing immortal time bias in precision medicine: Practical guidance and methods development.Health services research · 2025Article
- Clinical Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Multigene Panel Sequencing in Advanced Melanoma: A Population-Level Real-World Target Trial Emulation.JCO precision oncology · 2025Article
- Real-world cost-effectiveness of multi-gene panel sequencing to inform therapeutic decisions for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a population-based study.Lancet regional health. Americas · 2024Article
- First-Line Genomic Profiling in Previously Untreated Advanced Solid Tumors for Identification of Targeted Therapy Opportunities.JAMA network open · 2023Observational
- Article
- A perspective on life-cycle health technology assessment and real-world evidence for precision oncology in Canada.NPJ precision oncology · 2022Review
- Comparing Survival Outcomes for Advanced Cancer Patients Who Received Complex Genomic Profiling Using a Synthetic Control Arm.Targeted oncology · 2022Article
- Stakeholder Perspectives on Navigating Evidentiary and Decision Uncertainty in Precision Oncology.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- The Past, Present, and Future of Economic Evaluations of Precision Medicine at the Committee for Economic Analyses of the Canadian Cancer Trials Group.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2021Review
- Clinical and cost outcomes following genomics-informed treatment for advanced cancers.Cancer 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
Abstract
backgroundRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) are uncommon in precision oncology. We provide an introduction and illustrative example of matching methods for evaluating precision oncology in the absence of RCTs. We focus on British Columbia's Personalized OncoGenomics (POG) program, which applies whole-genome and transcriptome analysis (WGTA) to inform advanced cancer care.
methodsOur cohort comprises 230 POG patients enrolled between 2014 and 2015 and matched POG-naive controls. We generated our matched cohort using 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) and genetic matching prior to exploring survival differences.
resultsWe find that genetic matching outperformed PSM when balancing covariates. In all cohorts, overall survival did not significantly differ across POG and POG-naive patients (p > 0.05). Stratification by WGTA-informed treatment indicated unmatched survival differences. Patients whose WGTA information led to treatment change were at a reduced hazard of death compared to POG-naive controls in all cohorts, with estimated hazard ratios ranging from 0.33 (95% CI: 0.13, 0.81) to 0.41 (95% CI: 0.17, 0.98).
conclusionThese results signal that clinical effectiveness of precision oncology approaches will depend on rates of genomics-informed treatment change. Our study will guide future evaluations of precision oncology and support reliable effect estimation when RCT data are unavailable.
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.