ArticleCancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.)2021
Impact of molecular testing in advanced melanoma on outcomes in a tertiary cancer center and as reported in a publicly available database.
Article in Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Natural Language Processing of Radiology Reports to Assess Survival in Patients with Advanced Melanoma.Cancers · 2025Article
- Next-generation sequencing in dermatology.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Review
- Impact of molecular testing in advanced melanoma on outcomes in a tertiary cancer center and as reported in a publicly available database.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn patients with advanced melanoma (MM), genomic profiling may guide treatment decisions in the frontline setting and beyond as specific tumor mutations can be treated with targeted therapy (TT). The range of panel sizes used to identify targetable mutations (TM) can range from a few dozen to whole exome sequencing (WES).
aimWe investigated the impact of panel size and mutation status on first-line treatment selection and outcomes in MM. METHODS AND
resultsWe analyzed data for 1109 MM patients from three cohorts: 169 patients at NYULH and profiled with the 50 gene Ion Torrent panel (IT), 195 patients at MSKCC, profiled with the 400-gene MSK-IMPACT panel (MSK-I) and 745 patients at seven different sites profiled with WES. Data for cohorts 2 and 3 were extrapolated from the publicly available cBioPortal. Treatment information was available for 100%, 25%, and 0% of patients in cohort 1, 2, and 3, respectively. BRAF and NRAS were among the top five most commonly mutated genes in the IT and MSK-I, whereas for WES only BRAF was a top five mutation. There was no significant difference in OS for BRAF MUT patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) vs TT in cohort 1 (P = .19), nor for BRAF MUT patients from cohort 1 treated with ICI vs those from cohort 2 treated with TT (P = .762).
conclusionPublic datasets provide population-level data; however, the heterogeneity of reported clinical information limits their value and calls for data standardization. Without evidence of clear clinical benefit of a larger panel size, there is a rationale for adopting smaller, more cost effective panels in MM.
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.