Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35053600›Full record

ArticleCancers2022

Clinical Impact of Prospective Whole Genome Sequencing in Sarcoma Patients.

Luuk J Schipper, Kim Monkhorst, Kris G Samsom, Linda J W Bosch, Petur Snaebjornsson, Hester van Boven, Paul Roepman, Lizet E van der Kolk, Winan J van Houdt, Winette T A van der Graaf and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Patient experiences of tissue donation and digital consent support in primary craniospinal tumour research.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. The Future of Precision Oncology.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. 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

12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Luuk J SchipperDepartment of Molecular Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Kim MonkhorstDepartment of Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-8690-3811
Kris G SamsomDepartment of Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9875-3638
Linda J W BoschDepartment of Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Petur SnaebjornssonDepartment of Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Hester van BovenDepartment of Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Paul RoepmanHartwig Medical Foundation, 1098 XH Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Lizet E van der KolkFamily Cancer Clinic, Netherlands Cancer Institute, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Winan J van HoudtDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2303-3468
Winette T A van der GraafDepartment of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7549-3338
Gerrit A MeijerDepartment of Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Emile E VoestDepartment of Molecular Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8249-9586
The Netherlands Cancer Institute · NLHartwig Medical Foundation · NL

Funding

Hartwig Medical Foundation In kind contributionNetherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development 446002004
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With more than 70 different histological sarcoma subtypes, accurate classification can be challenging. Although characteristic genetic events can largely facilitate pathological assessment, large-scale molecular profiling generally is not part of regular diagnostic workflows for sarcoma patients. We hypothesized that whole genome sequencing (WGS) optimizes clinical care of sarcoma patients by detection of diagnostic and actionable genomic characteristics, and of underlying hereditary conditions. WGS of tumor and germline DNA was incorporated in the diagnostic work-up of 83 patients with a (presumed) sarcomas in a tertiary referral center. Clinical follow-up data were collected prospectively to assess impact of WGS on clinical decision making. In 12/83 patients (14%), the genomic profile led to revision of cancer diagnosis, with change of treatment plan in eight. All twelve patients had undergone multiple tissue retrieval procedures and immunohistopathological assessments by regional and expert pathologists prior to WGS analysis. Actionable biomarkers with therapeutic potential were identified for 30/83 patients. Pathogenic germline variants were present in seven patients. In conclusion, unbiased genomic characterization with WGS identifies genomic biomarkers with direct clinical implications for sarcoma patients. Given the diagnostic complexity and high unmet need for new treatment opportunities in sarcoma patients, WGS can be an important extension of the diagnostic arsenal of pathologists.

Indexed as

advanced sarcomabroad molecular profilingdiagnostic biomarkersprecision oncologywhole genome sequencing

Identifiers

PMID35053600
PMCPMC8773512
OpenAlexW4205551677

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.