ArticlePloS one2021
Clinical benefit for clinical sequencing using cancer panel testing.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical benefit of additional whole-exome sequencing over panel sequencing in an all-comer real-world molecular tumor board.ESMO open · 2025Article
- Transforming Diagnosis and Therapeutics Using Cancer Genomics.Cancer treatment and research · 2023Article
- Artificial Intelligence and Precision Medicine: A New Frontier for the Treatment of Brain Tumors.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Clinical Significance of Multi-Cancer Genome Profiling: Data from a Single Hospital in Japan.Cancer genomics & proteomicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical sequencing using a panel of genes has recently been applied worldwide for patients with refractory solid tumors, but the significance of clinical sequencing using gene panel testing remains uncertain. Here we sought to clarify the feasibility and utility of clinical sequencing in the treatment of refractory tumors at our hospital.
methodsA total of 39 patients with advanced solid tumors treated at our hospital between 2018 and 2020 were enrolled in the clinical sequencing. Among them, we identified 36 patients whose tissue samples were of suitable quality for clinical sequencing, and we analyzed the genomic profiles of these tumors.
resultsPathogenic alterations were detected in 28 (78%) of the 36 patients. The most common mutation was TP53 (55%), followed by KRAS (22%), and the highest frequency of gene amplification was ERBB2 (17%). Nine of the 36 patients were identified as candidates for novel molecular-targeted therapy based on their actionable gene alterations, but only one case ended up receiving novel targeted therapy following the genetic tests.
conclusionsOur current results suggested that clinical sequencing might be useful for the detection of pathogenic alterations and the management of additional cancer treatment. However, molecular target based on actionable genomic alteration does not always bridge to subsequent therapy due to clinical deterioration, refusal for unapproved drug, and complexity of clinical trial access. Both improved optimal timing of clinical sequencing and a consensus about its off-label use might help patients receive greater benefit from clinical sequencing.
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.