ArticleClinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research2022
Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Serial Analysis of Clinical Cancer Genomics Data Identifies Changing Treatment Recommendations and Therapeutic Targets.
Article in Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research, 2022. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Spatial profiling of human pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma reveals molecular alterations associated with venous invasion.Science translational medicine · 2025Article
- Multimodal AI in Biomedicine: Pioneering the Future of Biomaterials, Diagnostics, and Personalized Healthcare.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Improvement of the sensitivity of circulating tumor DNA-based liquid biopsy: current approaches and future perspectives.Exploration of targeted anti-tumor therapy · 2025Review
- Colorectal cancer in patients of advanced age is associated with increased incidence ofFrontiers in oncology · 2023Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeGiven the pace of predictive biomarker and targeted therapy development, it is unknown whether repeat annotation of the same next-generation sequencing data can identify additional clinically actionable targets that could be therapeutically leveraged. In this study, we sought to determine the predictive yield of serial reanalysis of clinical tumor sequencing data. EXPERIMENTAL
designUsing artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted variant annotation, we retrospectively reanalyzed sequencing data from 2,219 patients with cancer from a single academic medical center at 3-month intervals totaling 9 months in 2020. The yield of serial reanalysis was assessed by the proportion of patients with improved strength of therapeutic recommendations.
resultsA total of 1,775 patients (80%) had ≥1 potentially clinically actionable mutation at baseline, including 243 (11%) patients who had an alteration targeted by an FDA-approved drug for their cancer type. By month 9, the latter increased to 458 (21%) patients mainly due to a single pan-cancer agent directed against tumors with high tumor mutation burden. Within this timeframe, 67 new therapies became available and 45 were no longer available. Variant pathogenicity classifications also changed leading to changes in treatment recommendations for 124 patients (6%).
conclusionsSerial reannotation of tumor sequencing data improved the strength of treatment recommendations (based on level of evidence) in a mixed cancer cohort and showed substantial changes in available therapies and variant classifications. These results suggest a role for repeat analysis of tumor sequencing data in clinical practice, which can be streamlined with AI support.
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.