Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33400095›Full record

ArticleTargeted oncology2021

Results and Clinical Utilization of Foundation Medicine Molecular Tumor Profiling in Uterine and Ovarian Cancers.

Catherine H Watson, Gloria Broadwater, Janice Wong, Daniel Spinosa, Mary Katherine Montes de Oca, Michael Datto, Michelle Green, Christopher Hubbard, Matthew McKinney, Shannon J McCall and 5 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Targeted oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 55% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
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

15 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Catherine H WatsonDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Duke University, 201 Trent Drive, 203 Baker House, Durham, NC, 27710, USA. catherine.h.watson@duke.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-4200-6502
Gloria BroadwaterDuke Cancer Institute Biostatistics, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
Janice WongDuke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Daniel SpinosaDuke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Mary Katherine Montes de OcaDuke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Michael DattoDepartment of Pathology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Michelle GreenDepartment of Pathology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Christopher HubbardDepartment of Pathology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Matthew McKinneyDuke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC, USA.
Shannon J McCallDepartment of Pathology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Laura J HavrileskyDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Duke University, 201 Trent Drive, 203 Baker House, Durham, NC, 27710, USA.
John H StricklerDuke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC, USA.
Andrew BerchuckDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Duke University, 201 Trent Drive, 203 Baker House, Durham, NC, 27710, USA.
Kyle C StricklandDepartment of Pathology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Rebecca A PrevisDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Duke University, 201 Trent Drive, 203 Baker House, Durham, NC, 27710, USA.
Duke University · USDuke Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecent advances in next-generation sequencing have allowed for an increase in molecular tumor profiling.

objectiveWe sought to assess the actionability and clinical utilization of molecular tumor profiling results obtained via Foundation Medicine tumor sequencing tests in uterine and ovarian cancers. PATIENTS AND

methodsWe performed a single-institution retrospective chart review to obtain demographic and clinical information in patients with uterine and ovarian cancer whose tumors were submitted to Foundation Medicine for molecular tumor profiling over a 7-year period. Alterations identified on testing were stratified according to the OncoKB database actionability algorithm. Descriptive statistics were primarily used to analyze the data.

resultsTumors from 185 women with gynecologic cancer were submitted for molecular tumor profiling between 2013 and 2019. The majority of tests (144/185; 78%) were ordered after a diagnosis of recurrence. In 60 (32%), no actionable molecular alteration was identified. Thirteen (7%) identified an alteration that directed to a US Food and Drug Administration-approved therapy in that tumor type, while 112 (61%) had alterations with investigational or hypothetical treatment implications. In patients with any actionable finding, treatment was initiated in 27 (15%) based on these results.

conclusionsThe majority of uterine and ovarian cancers (93%) did not have molecular alterations with corresponding Food and Drug Administration-approved treatments. Even in patients with a potentially actionable alteration, gynecologic oncologists were more likely to choose an alternative therapy. Further investigation is warranted to determine which patients with uterine and ovarian cancer are most likely to benefit from molecular tumor profiling and the ideal timing of testing. The potential to identify effective therapeutic options in a minority of patients needs to be balanced with the current limited clinical applicability of these results in most cases.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansMiddle AgedOvarian NeoplasmsUterine NeoplasmsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID33400095
OpenAlexW3120220060

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.